Suze: NZ Muslims Are Yet to Object Publicly

It’s one and the same for fringe minorities seeking public affirmation through exploiting great chasms of tolerance embedded in our Christian-based law but the answer is not to adopt law changes instilling intolerance, but to nip the opportunists in the bud.

Trannies did it in public libraries up and down the country until Brian Tamaki recently cottoned onto their penchant for openly subjecting young children to flamboyant eroticism. He then campaigned against library events, successfully shutting down the Rotorua Public Library event after canvassing local support and threatening the Hastings City Council with the same.

Bruce Logan: Compulsory Hypocrisy

Let me declare myself. I am an orthodox Christian who welcomes criticism and satire, even ridicule of my faith. I welcome them because they sharpen my own thinking and they give me an opportunity to talk about what I believe.

Hate speech legislation will kill so much of what I enjoy. It will coerce self-censorship and encourage me and nearly everyone else to be a hypocrite, indeed it is remarkably close to making hypocrisy compulsory. And it does that because perpetrators are infatuated by the cult of diversity, inclusion and equity (DIE) and muddled about human rights. And in that fog of muddle and infatuation there is no fresh Nor ’wester permitted to clear the air.

Bryce Edwards: Why Labour capitulated on hate speech laws

The Labour Government is currently fighting on multiple fronts that threaten its popularity in the run-up to next year’s election. Therefore, when a call had to be made about whether to push through divisive and poorly-designed hate speech laws, there really was no decision for Justice Minister Kiri Allan to make – the reforms had to be severely watered down.

On Saturday Allan announced that the Government had decided to ditch the majority of its hate speech reforms. Of six proposed changes to the law, only one will proceed – adding the category of “religion” to groups currently protected under the Human Rights Act.

Jonathan Ayling: A win for free speech

 

Hate speech laws are a fool's errand that make things worse

Time has been called on overhauling ‘hate speech laws’ in New Zealand. After sitting in Labour’s manifesto for years, and two Ministers of Justice failing to build support for the proposals, maybe they’ve seen the light: legislation is no antidote to hate. 

Minister Kiri Allan confirmed Saturday morning on Newshub Nation that the only proposal which will be enacted from last year’s proposal consultation is the inclusion of religion as a protected class. This is a major backdown from the intention to expand penalties significantly for hate speech (from 3 months in prison to 3 years and/or a fine from $7,000 to $50,000), to include a host of new protected groups, and to amend ‘incitement to discrimination. 

Bryce Edwards: A Culture war over hate speech and free speech is unlikely

Sunday’s announcement by Justice Minister Kiri Allan about forthcoming legislation on hate speech has sparked concerns that the country is headed for a second round of culture wars over free speech. As one journalist states today, Allan is “reigniting last year’s political firestorm”.

Some have suggested that Labour are about to make another attempt – after former Justice Minister Kris Faafoi had earlier put the hate speech law proposals on ice – to push through divisive and controversial legislation. Campaigners against hate speech have expressed their gratitude for Allan’s announcement, while free speech campaigners have warned that they are ready for a big fight.

Bryce Edwards: Labour’s sensible taihoa on hate speech law

The Government has delayed the introduction of its fraught hate speech law reforms, and there’s strong speculation they’ll remain on ice until after the next election. In fact, they may never see the light of day again.

This is a win for those who have argued that the reforms are likely to be counterproductive, impinging on human rights, including political freedoms and speech. Although the Government’s motivation might have been good in wanting to clamp down on what people can legally say, in practice the reforms were badly thought through and would have a chilling impact on political debate. 

Famously both the Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern were unable to adequately defend or explain their new rules last year, which gave weight to the argument that they were dangerous and knee-jerk.

NZCPR Newsletter: Lessons for New Zealand

The shock invasion of the Ukraine serves as a grim reminder of the fragility of freedom and democracy in the face of powerful totalitarian aggressors.

The leadership shown by the President of the Ukraine, the former actor Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the bravery of the Ukrainian people, who have taken up arms to defend their country, stands in sharp contrast to the seeming impotence of the West. While supplies of weapons to support the ‘people’s army’ and sanctions against Vladimir Putin and Russia are all-important, as the aggressor unleashes its military might, the Ukrainians are effectively standing alone.

Many lessons are emerging from this deadly conflict.

NZCPR Weekly: Attacking Free Speech

Dear NZCPR Reader,   

In this week’s NZCPR newsletter we examine the disgraceful attack on seven university professors who expressed concerns about Maori culture and spiritualism being given the same status as ‘science’ in the school curriculum – and we remind readers that time is running out to send in submissions opposing the Government’s proposed hate speech laws; our NZCPR Guest Commentator Graham Adams shares his analysis of the vitriolic attack on the professors; and our poll asks whether the Government should abandon their planned hate speech law changes.

*To read the newsletter click HERE.
*To register for the NZCPR Weekly mailing list, click HERE.  

Graham Adams: The thorny hate-speech debate sorts sheep from goats

Former Labour MP Sue Moroney discovers the perils of offering simple solutions to a complex problem. Graham Adams argues that common sense isn’t enough to decide when speech becomes a crime scene.

The hate-speech debate is quickly becoming an arena where reputations go to die. Kris Faafoi, the Minister of Justice, learned that dismal lesson the hard way after a train-wreck television interview in late June in which he failed to answer basic questions about exactly what examples of speech might be caught in a proposed law change.

He’s been in hiding ever since. He told RNZ he was too busy to be interviewed even during a three-week parliamentary recess. He has also refused to appear on TVNZ’s current affairs programme Q&A.

Garrick Tremain: Hate Speech

 Here is Garrick Tremain's cartoon commentary on Jacinda Ardern's proposed hate speech law! 

Graham Adams: Kris Faafoi is too busy to discuss proposals for hate-speech laws

The Minister of Justice appears to have gone into hiding. Graham Adams provides an update on how the public debate on hate speech regulation is going, especially in terms of whether political opinion should or shouldn’t receive an exemption from new laws - first published 16 July.

It fell to RNZ to break the news to the nation late last week that the Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, had “gone to ground”. Despite making repeated requests to interview him about proposals to expand hate-speech laws, the public broadcaster has been told the minister in charge of managing their introduction is too busy — even during a three-week parliamentary recess — to discuss them.

With her Minister of Justice having gone AWOL ever since a disastrous television interview on the topic a month ago, the Prime Minister’s call for a national debate has lurched from a shambles into farce. The government allowed only six weeks for public submissions and now — with less than two weeks to go until the August 6 deadline — the cat has apparently got Faafoi’s tongue in an iron grip.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek: The ‘Incitement of Hatred and Discrimination’ law change proposal - Humpty Dumpty let loose

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

- Lewis Carroll in ‘Through the Looking Glass’

The Government’s proposals regarding the changes to the law governing incitement and discrimination are so loaded I decided to not complete the ‘consultation’ form.

Lindsay Perigo: Comrade Ardern's "Social Cohesion" = Coerced Conformity!

Judith Collins has joined the Free Speech Union.

Oddly, she doesn't mention the fact in her Collins Comments of July 2, but she does say this:

The National Party believes that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. We will fight any attempts Jacinda Ardern’s Government makes to criminalise speech beyond the threshold of ‘inciting violence’, which is already provided for in New Zealand law.

While the National Party condemns vile speech that is intended to insult, it is a big leap from condemning it to criminalising it.

The Prime Minister needs to be clear about the intent of this law reform. At the moment it seems only approved opinions about some subjects will be allowed and questioning those opinions will be a criminal offence.

The government has not said who will decide what opinions are acceptable. The Minister of Justice is not clear on what “hatred” is and there is no clear threshold for punishment stated.

I invite every New Zealander to have their say on these changes on this government website, please click

https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/policy/incitement-of-hatred/

Graham Adams: Is Ardern preparing her escape route from hate speech laws?

The Prime Minister has seriously miscalculated the popularity of her proposed legislation. Graham Adams argues she may already be looking for ways to extricate herself.

On the campaign trail last year, Ardern raised eyebrows when she blithely told journalists she expected “wide support” for expanding existing hate-speech laws to include religion. When asked whether sexual orientation, age or disability could be included, she said, “Yeah.”

The Prime Minister, who had just unveiled a memorial plaque at Christchurch’s Al Noor mosque, added that she couldn’t understand why there would be resistance from other political parties. “I don’t see why there should be, and so that’s probably a question for every political party, but that’s certainly our view.”

After a firestorm erupted last week with the announcement of a new hate speech offence to be included in the Crimes Act that carries a maximum penalty of three years’ jail and a $50,000 fine, her display of confidence last September seems not so much naive as completely deluded.

Chris Trotter: I understand why you want to do it, Jacinda – but don’t

I UNDERSTAND WHY the Prime Minister feels so strongly about “Hate Speech”. The events of 15 March 2019 are seared upon Jacinda Ardern’s memory. She will not, therefore, abandon lightly what she sees as a particularly effective means of preventing such horrors from ever happening again. 

It is also clear that the Prime Minister believes she has promises to keep to the victims of the Christchurch Mosque Attacks. From her perspective, legislating against “Hate Speech” is the most important way of keeping those promises.
She’s wrong, of course.

Prime Ministers cannot afford to take things personally. That may sound harsh and unfeeling, but it is, nevertheless, true. As the leader of this country, Jacinda Ardern has a responsibility to honour not just the pain and suffering of the victims of the Christchurch terrorist, but the pain and suffering of the generation of New Zealanders who battled against the most malign terrorist of all time.

Tony Sayers: Rats in The Attic and Bats in The Belfry?

Preface: In New Zealand, now illegitimately named Aotearoa, we enter a new era in journalism. I refer to the impending ‘Hate Speech Laws’.

For that reason, I feel the need to preface this article by stating that the objective of this article is to hold up for scrutiny and condemn, the preoccupation that the Ardern Government has for pitting races against each other.

With reference to the proposed Hate Speech Laws, on 25/06/2021, Justice Minister Kris Faafoi stated: ‘The proposals are also focused on speech inciting hatred in other people towards a group, rather than towards one individual’.[3]

The Labour Government is ‘a group’, however, I am not inciting hatred towards them, they are doing a fine job of that without any help from me. Is this a ploy to suppress any criticism of the government?

NZCPR Weekly: Muzzling Free Speech

Dear NZCPR Reader,   

In this week’s NZCPR newsletter we investigate Labour’s plan to criminalise free speech and examine some of their misleading claims, our NZCPR Guest Commentator Karl du Fresne reviews the hate speech law change proposals and suggests they could become a nail in Labour’s coffin, and our poll asks whether you believe the proposed hate speech laws are needed.

*To read the newsletter click HERE.
*To register for the NZCPR Weekly mailing list, click HERE.  

Derek Mackie: Don't you just hate that!

Debate over the proposed Hate Speech legislation is raging at the moment. Even the mainstream media seem genuinely concerned because they rightly see themselves as potential offenders. Most stick strictly to the woke script so only a sudden brainstorm of independent thought or a cash injection from a private investor to restore their journalistic autonomy would put them at risk. A slim chance, I know, but one worth covering. 

 The Justice Minister, Kris Faafoi, appeared particularly ignorant when interviewed recently and asked what would qualify as hate speech. His reply seemed to be that he couldn’t possibly say but that the police would decide. But if he doesn’t know, what makes a police officer an authority? 

 The push for this legislation stems from the Christchurch Mosque Massacre but there is absolutely no credible evidence showing that if this law had been in place prior to the attack it would have prevented it or even warned of it. There is already existing legislation covering incitement to violence and threatening behaviour. Which begs the question, why is this government so keen to implement it? 

Heather du Plessis-Allan: Do Ministers even understand the proposed hate speech laws?

 

I am more alarmed today by the proposed hate speech laws than I was on Friday when they released.

Simply because it is now clear that key government figures don’t understand their own laws – meaning they don’t understand what they’re about to do.

This morning in a TV interview, the Prime Minister made several inaccurate statements about what the law is going to do.

First, she said this new law isn’t changing much. We already have a law that punishes people if they incite violence against people of certain nationalities and ethnicities, and all they’re doing is expanding that to include religion and so on.

Bob Edlin: Hate speech law consultation

The government has declared its intention to make hate speech a Crimes Act offence and to increase the penalties for inciting hatred or discrimination.

It has announced a public consultation on proposed changes to the Human Rights Act 1993

“… to strengthen protections against speech that incites hatred and discrimination; and seeking New Zealanders’ views about how they would make New Zealand more socially cohesive”.

Writer George Orwell would have relished the language applied by Beehive spin doctors to describing the objective. The government is launching a “social cohesion programme to address incitement of hatred and discrimination”.