Roger Partridge: Harmed by harm - How a word is swallowing freedom

Last month, ten organisations representing New Zealand’s ethnic, faith and multicultural communities delivered what they called an election message to the political parties: commit to new hate speech laws before New Zealanders vote. The Green Party committed to implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks, including extending the incitement provisions and the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to cover religion. Labour said it was considering “legislative settings” and would announce its position “in due course.” ACT, the smaller party in the governing coalition, said the existing law was adequate. National, the senior party in that coalition, said it did not support legislating against hate speech, pointing instead to its Peace and Harmony Accord with community leaders.

Jonathan Ayling: Why New Zealand Must Reject 'Hate Crime' Laws

On Tuesday, the Law Commission opened consultation on whether or not New Zealand should create standalone 'hate crime' laws, a move that, at first glance, might seem like a necessary step toward a more just society.

However, beneath the surface lies unavoidable subjectivity, concentration of more power in ideological hands, and inevitable unintended consequences that threaten foundational freedoms.

David Thunder: New Hate Speech Laws Scrapped in Ireland

The Irish Government has announced it is scrapping its plans to introduce significant updates to Ireland’s existing hate speech laws, as there is not enough support for the proposed legislation. Remarkably, the legislation had already passed the lower house of the Irish Parliament by an overwhelming margin (114 in favour, 10 against) in April 2023, but began to stall in the Senate as its more problematic features came to light. It had gained international notoriety when it came under fire from X’s CEO, Elon Musk.

Dane Giraud: So many Coughlins

On a night in that grey depressive season of 1938, a filth blanketed New York City.

The bandwidth occupied by WMCA.

The pro-Mussolini pro-Hitler priest-turned-radio host Father Charles E. Coughlin made an address to his substantial audience (tens of millions of Americans every week), that bore a closer resemblance to something out of the toxic leaves of Der Stürmer than to any text in the New Testament.

Bob McCoskrie: Chloe proves the danger of ‘hate speech’ laws

In 2022, the Labour Government released a discussion document on hate speech laws that intended to strengthen protections against speech inciting hatred or discrimination because they said they didn’t believe the law was clear enough, specifically highlighting that trans, gender diverse and intersex people needed to be protected from “discrimination”. They said the final proposal would make changes to clarify this by changing the word “sex” (currently understood as biological sex as would be naturally expected) – changed to include “sex characteristics or intersex status” and adding a new ground of “gender including gender expression and gender identity”.

Thomas Cranmer: Balancing free speech and protecting religious beliefs: The complexities of hate speech laws

The government’s most recent failed attempt to enact hate speech laws shows just how difficult it is to strike the right balance between free speech and the protection of religious beliefs.

The tension between free speech and the protection of religious beliefs has long been a subject of debate around the world, and the complexities of hate speech laws have become a challenging issue. In New Zealand, this debate has been especially prominent in recent decades, with several high-profile cases and tragic events bringing the issue to the forefront of public discourse. In this article, we will explore some of these cases both in New Zealand and abroad, and examine the challenges faced by governments in balancing free speech and religious beliefs.

Thomas Cranmer: Balancing Free Speech and Protecting Religious Beliefs - The Complexities of Hate Speech Laws

The government's most recent failed attempt to enact hate speech laws shows just how difficult it is to strike the right balance between free speech and the protection of religious beliefs.

The tension between free speech and the protection of religious beliefs has long been a subject of debate around the world, and the complexities of hate speech laws have become a challenging issue. In New Zealand, this debate has been especially prominent in recent decades, with several high-profile cases and tragic events bringing the issue to the forefront of public discourse. In this article, we will explore some of these cases both in New Zealand and abroad, and examine the challenges faced by governments in balancing free speech and religious beliefs.

Roger Partridge: Labour's problematic new blasphemy laws

Hate speech is back on the Parliamentary agenda for 2023. Justice Minister Kiri Allan’s slimmed down reform proposals are expected to pass into law before the election. Yet her reform is still fraught.

New Zealand’s existing hate speech laws apply only to inviolable characteristics. The protected traits are skin colour, race, ethnicity and national origin.

Allan’s predecessor, Kris Faafoi, proposed adding to these protected characteristics a raft of others, including religious and ethical beliefs, employment and family status, age, sex and gender - and even political opinion.

Alex Penk: To understand hate speech, we have to understand free speech

We need to start by acknowledging not just that hate speech is bad, but that free speech is good.

The Government is pushing ahead with new hate speech laws. It’s introduced a bill to make it illegal to “excite hostility” against religious believers or bring them into “contempt” with “threatening, abusive or insulting” words, and the Law Commission will be asked to look at more extensive changes.

Most of the debate will be about the problems with hate speech laws, like the way they can make people afraid to speak freely about important but sensitive issues. So to really understand what’s at stake we have to understand why free speech matters in the first place.