Religious beliefs must be open to scrutiny and, sometimes, to ridicule

Monday, February 20th, 2023

The Government’s proposed speech-banning legislation was highly problematic, so it is welcome news that it has been dropped.

But the Government has not had the good sense to dump it completely.

There are worrying signs that the muddle might yet be disinterred and a resurrection attempt made.

The Greens have expressed disappointment, and the matter has been hospital-passed to the Law Commission to take forward.

It is therefore important to understand what Labour and the Greens want to ban, why the bill was woefully misconceived, and why it should be properly abandoned.

The Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill targeted anti-religious speech and would have treated speech that incites “religious disharmony” exactly the same way as speech that incites racial disharmony.

At first blush, this might seem fine, perhaps even good in the wake of the Christchurch mosque atrocity. But it’s plain that the proposed law would have done nothing to prevent that horror.

We have very good reasons in Aotearoa New Zealand to discourage speech that brings people into contempt or ridicule solely by reason of their colour or race. Race and colour are innate, immutable characteristics, not a tenable ground for contempt or ridicule.

Religious beliefs are different, in countless ways.

Religious beliefs are (or should be) open to scrutiny, challenge, debate, change, and also, on occasion, ridicule.

Take Young Earth Creationism, for example.

This religious belief holds that the Earth was created by the Abrahamic God between 6000 and 10,000 years ago. I will not shy away from stating bluntly that this is simply wrong.

Other religious groups hold beliefs that many New Zealanders would find immoral, unjust, repressive, outmoded, and ridiculous.

To take a local example, in 2016 Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki blamed gay people for the Christchurch earthquake. Our then Prime Minister, John Key, labelled this appalling claim “ridiculous”.

It was indeed ridiculous, and ridiculing the belief was a perfectly proper response. The belief was also contemptible.

This brings us back to the paused “hate speech” ban, which would have made it a criminal offence to bring any group of people into contempt or ridicule by reason of their religious beliefs. This would have been a de facto blasphemy law.

Under the proposed law, were a New Zealand cleric to give a similar fiery sermon about Auckland floods being caused by gays and were our current Prime Minister then to ridicule that ridiculous belief, or rightly call it contemptible, the Prime Minister would be at risk of prosecution – potentially along with media commenting on it – rather than the preacher who was stirring up hatred against our gay community.

Criminalising speech which holds religious beliefs in ridicule or contempt is a dangerous gambit.

Politicians should not be at risk of prosecution for ridiculing the beliefs of hate preachers or calling those beliefs contemptible.

Booksellers should not have to seek legal advice before stocking Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great or Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, which both treat religious beliefs with ridicule and contempt.

Law-abiding citizens should not have to worry about criminal liability for screening Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which likewise skewers and lampoons religious beliefs.

Religions are powerful and influential institutions. Holding them to account is essential in a modern society.

Mocking religion can be speaking truth to power. Being free to do so is a sign that one is living in a free democracy and not a repressive theocracy. Continue reading