The letter

In the May 2 letter, Porteous railed against the "radicalised transgender lobby", same-sex marriage and the "woke movement".

"What we are now witnessing in our Australian society is the imposition of certain ideological positions on social and moral questions by means of legislation" the archbishop wrote.

"We are challenged as to why we do not accept what is now viewed as reasonable and acceptable behaviour.

Since the same-sex marriage plebiscite, "we have seen the growth in what has been referred to as the 'woke' movement, seeking to overturn other traditional values and beliefs".

"This has included the push for 'diversity and inclusivity' training in the corporate sector and the attack on the biological reality of being male or female through a radicalised transgender lobby.

"As the Church, we cannot stand by as we experience our freedoms being taken from us."

The letter was widely distributed among Tasmania's Catholic schools.

Politicians and LGBTQIA+ advocates criticised it as being transphobic, homophobic and draconian.

School response

After its school community received the letter, one school wrote to parents.

St Cuthbert's Catholic School told them it had replied to the archbishop. It confirmed it is "committed to developing an inclusive and accepting culture that is in harmony with the Catholic tradition".

It will "continue to foster a safe, respectful and inclusive environment" for students and the school community.

The Independent Education Union supported St Cuthbert's response to the archbishop.

"Taking a stand like this on behalf of students, staff and the whole community is in the best tradition of Catholic social justice" the union said.

The Archdiocese of Hobart declined to comment on the school's response.

By Wednesday evening, the school's message to parents via an internal communication app had been deleted.

Archbishop rebuked

Concerned Catholics Tasmania (CCT) — a group "committed to renewal and reform in our Church" — rebuked the letter's "heartless" and "alarmist" tone.

Porteous's "reference to 'God's own people' is both arrogant and exclusory" and "a form of aggression and violence" the CCT said.

She was concerned that Porteous's letter suggested "no one is being forced to teach in or be a student in a Catholic school ...".

If they find their personal views are at variance with those of the Catholic faith, "then it would only make sense they should seek an alternative educational institution more aligned with their views" Poteous wrote.

Hate speech

Tasmanian MP Kristie Johnston criticised the letter as "nothing short of hateful speech".

Tasmanian LGBTQIA+ advocacy group Equality Tasmania said the letter contained "misinformation and disinformation, and also some homophobic and transphobic beliefs".

Source

• ABC

Legislating to stop hate speech. Using a "hecklers' veto" to run Posie Parker out of town. Victories against hate. Job done.

I've done my share.

My student comrades were on a high after we heckled and shut down a National Front meeting outside our UK Labour Party conference in the 1980s.

We didn't change minds. Just the venue.

Shutting down people who are hateful feels right. But counter-intuitively, banning hateful words is not the best way to stop the hate.

Nadine Strossen is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor. She hates Nazis.

She hates them more than she loves free speech. Over coffee, she told me her mission is to get rid of the hate, not the speech.

She has spent decades looking at hate speech through history, and found no evidence that banning it reduces hate. As the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an author and a law professor, she would know.

New Zealand's draft hate speech legislation has been put in the freezer, for now.

Extending the Human Rights Act to cover hate speech against religion and politics was a well-intentioned response to the Christchurch shooting. But it is bad law.

The first red flag was the Government's inability to define hate speech. "You know it when you see it," the former prime minister said.

You don't know it when you see it.

One person's hate speech is another's just cause.

Words cannot define precisely enough what is a subjective concept.

"Hate is an emotion after all," says Strossen.

"No two thinking people can possibly agree on what is hateful and what is not."

Every argument today to justify censoring white supremacist speech was made by defenders of slavery to ban abolitionist speakers.

She quotes the slavers arguing that the words of abolitionists "libelled the South and inflicted emotional injury", and were "emotionally upsetting and traumatising".

Laws were duly passed to "reduce the harm".

More recently, some US politicians denounced Black Lives Matter and "defund the police" advocacy as hate speech against white people and police officers.

It is impossible to write anti-speech codes that cannot be twisted.

Worse still, hate speech legislation distracts from more effective ways of countering hate.

A swastika sprayed on a Jewish school is vandalism.

Burning a cross on someone's front lawn is an illegal threat.

Planning mass murder in Christchurch was already illegal in 2019, if only our secret services had been paying attention.

Pre-Hitler Germany had anti-hate laws.

They didn't stop Hitler.

They turned Nazi prisoners into martyrs while robbing others of their free speech.

Exiled German students tried to get Mein Kampf translated into English to warn the world of Hitler's plans, but failed.

The book was banned.

There are better ways to counter offensive speech than running the likes of Posie Parker out of the country. Continue reading

• Josie Pagani is a commentator on current affairs and a regular contributor to Stuff. She works in geopolitics, aid and development, and governance.

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.

Labour lost the debate and capitulated

The Government had previously been keen to go much further than this.

There is an argument that the current definition of hate speech in the law makes prosecutions too difficult because the threshold for the courts to convict is far too high. The Royal Commission on the Christchurch Mosque Shootings argued that the current law "does not provide a credible foundation for prosecution".

The Labour Government, therefore, proposed last year a thorough reform of hate speech laws. But what they came up with was full of serious problems, provoking a backlash.

This was most vividly exposed when both the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice were unable to explain the reforms to the public.

Labour politicians couldn't promise that the reforms wouldn't lead to prosecutions, for example such as young people blaming the "Boomer" generation for monopolising housing wealth.

Unsurprisingly the public was not won over by Labour's proposed reforms.

The only authoritative public survey that has been carried out on the hate speech proposals - commissioned last year by the Free Speech Union, and carried out by Curia Research - showed 43 per cent surveyed either strongly or somewhat opposed, 31 per cent somewhat or strongly in favour, and 15 per cent neutral.

Notably, the survey showed that lower socio-economic voters were much less supportive of the reforms.

And historically and globally, this is also the case - groups with less power in society are most keen to retain political freedoms such as free speech.

The left is divided on free speech

Labour's reform efforts were dealt a further blow when so many leftwing voices came out in opposition to their plans.

The Government had probably assumed that only the political right would oppose the clampdowns on speech.

But when left-wing voices like Matt McCarten and Chris Trotter came out strongly opposed, this seriously undermined the moral authority of the reforms.

They pointed to the importance of free political speech for the advance of progressive causes and the fight against oppression.

The victims of state clampdowns on speech and politics have historically been the poor, trade unions, the left, and those fighting for change.

Nonetheless, the left was split on speech issues.

The more middle-class or "woke" parts of the left were much keener on speech clampdowns.

Green Party voters were the most supportive - with polling showing that 55 per cent of Greens wanted the reforms implemented.

Labour's decision to capitulate has disappointed liberals

Labour was therefore heading into a divisive election-year culture war that it couldn't win, and there was no appetite for such a fight.

Instead, the Government wanted to get the issue off the agenda as quickly and quietly as possible.

Hence Allan made the announcement on Saturday morning, and the Government has tried to quieten the debate ever since.

Even the Green Party has been relatively restrained in its reaction - they put out a press release noting the party's disappointment, but have generally helped Labour reduce public debate over the capitulation by not protesting too loudly.

Others have been extremely disappointed. The exclusion of gender or gender-diverse groups from being afforded the same protection as religious groups is very disappointing for journalists like Newsroom's Marc Daalder. Continue reading

It's been an ongoing question with pros and cons. Should the Act be expanded - or not?

The legislation already specifically protects people from being subject to hate speech because of their colour, race, ethnic or national origins.

Now the Government has decided the Act is to be amended. It will specifically include religious groups, the Minister of Justice, Kiri Allan, says.

Cardinal John Dew is one religious leader likely to be firmly in favour of the amendment.

In fact, during his homily at the interdenominational church service at Waitangi in 2020, he said he would like us all to recommit to protecting the beliefs of followers of all religions and non-religious people.

"It is time to recommit ourselves to protecting the faiths of all who live here - of Maori custom and spirituality, of the different Christian denominations, of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Bahai'i and many other faiths; and also the freedom of religion and conscience of those who profess no faith," he said.

He pointed out that in New Zealand our heritage was religious tolerance, religious inclusion and religious acceptance.

This heritage was sealed when the Treaty of Waitangi - Te Tiriti o Waitangi - was signed in 1840.

At that time, Bishop Jean Baptiste Pompallier New Zealand's first Catholic Bishop of New Zealand, asked for religious freedom to be respected.

In response, Crown representative Captain William Hobson formally affirmed: "Ko nga whakapono katoa i Ingarani, o nga Weteriana, o Roma, me te ritenga Maori, e tikanga ngatahitia e ia - the several faiths of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome and also Maori custom shall alike be protected."

Why the religious freedom amendment was passed

The current amendment to the Human Rights legislation stems from a recommendation suggested by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 2019 Christchurch terror attack.

It followed extensive consultation, with more than 19,000 submissions on six proposals.

While just one change tohas the Act been agreed, the Government says it intends asking for further work to be done alongside a wider range of groups.

These groups could include women, disabled people and the rainbow community.

The debate goes on

The divisive policy debate around expanding the Human Rights Act may continue.

Not everyone agrees extending the Act to include protection from hate speech is a good idea, for example.

Not surprisingly, the Free Speech Union isn't in favour of it.

The Union is commending the Minister for listening to the overwhelming public response calling for free speech to be upheld.

‘Hate speech laws don't work. For over 18 months, we have led the charge calling on the Government to back down from the idea that hate can be outlawed," says spokesperson Jonathan Ayling

"Over 80 percent of the submissions against the ‘hate speech law' proposals specifically endorsed our submission ... with over 50,000 signatures.

‘Two Justice Ministers have now failed in pushing their ideological agenda of expanded ‘hate speech' laws through and have now passed this poisoned chalice to the Law Commission ...

"The Ministry of Justice has just spent over two years working on this very issue. It's time better solutions were given a chance, solutions that elevate dialogue, reason,and counter-speech.

"If hate speech laws don't work for other ‘vulnerable communities', we need to rethink the entire venture. The question, ‘if this group, why not that group' is legitimate."

Source

• NewsHub
• Scoop
• Scoop
• Scoop

On the latest episode of Jordan Simi's Grouse & A Few Reds podcast, released on May 20, the topic of "New Zealand girls" came up.

Simi, a Sydney social media influencer and former rugby league player, described New Zealand women as "not looking nice" compared to UK women, who he described as the "cream of the crop".

Simi, who is Samoan and originally from South Auckland, went on to say: "shout out to South Auckland, where there was an all-girls school there and you would look at them and think, is that a girl?"

His two male co-hosts roared with laughter.

South Aucklander Mariner Fagaiava-Muller posted the audio clip on TikTok, commenting that hearing it made his blood boil.

Fagaiava-Muller's video has been viewed over 47,000 times and counting. Simi later replied to Fagaiava-Muller's video, saying his comments were "just a joke".

There's only one all-girls school in South Auckland and it's McAuley High School.

I went to McAuley High School.

The "joke" that was directed at McAuley students is nothing new.

If you attended McAuley, you were labelled a bulldog.

You were barked at if you were spotted in your school uniform out in public.

Students from other schools mocked us saying we looked manly or for having legs with big taro calves.

I lost count of how many times my school bus had its window smashed by a rock from another school student. Someone even wasted a mince and cheese pie-throwing it at the bus window.

McAuley students, like many South Auckland students at decile one schools, experience marginalisation on a daily basis.

We experience the kind of adversity where a joke about our appearance is just another stress we have to deal with.

McAuley is a school with limited resources and limited subject options, where the majority of families come from low-income households. They don't have the privilege of choosing whatever they want for lunch, having the top stationery brands, or being able to afford a blazer as part of the complete school uniform.

When you are a Pasifika girl from a household juggling study, errands and cultural responsibilities; when self-confidence is already a rarity; and you hear someone from your own community, on a platform with a large following, insult young girls for not looking a certain way - that their dark-coloured eyes, brown skin and black thick hair aren't seen as beautiful - it destroys what little self-belief you had left.

This is why the "joke" is not funny.

Because of those comments made throughout my years in high school, I, like many McAuley students, used it as unspoken motivation to do better, be better.

Since the early 2000s, McAuley has worked extra hard to prove its worth, to prove people wrong about the stereotypes placed on us by others. McAuley was featured in Metro a few times for their high academic rates for a decile one school.

In 2016, the school was awarded both Excellence in Engaging and Education Supreme Awards by the prime minister.

• Elisapeta Toeava of the Northern Mystics;
• Annetta Nu'uausala from the women's Newcastle Knights NRL team;
• Niu FM afternoon radio presenter Sia Petelo;
• prominent New Zealand multi-disciplinary artist Salome Tanuvasa;
• senior urban planner Eseta Maka-Fonokalafi;
• Bernadette Robertson, a member of the South Pacific Professional Engineering Excellence group; and myself,
• Pacific communities editor at The Spinoff.

All schooled at McAuley. All the while maintaining our reputation as "one of the schools to beat" at the largest Polynesian dance competition in the world, ASB Polyfest.

Of course, every high school has students who have gone off to do incredible, headlining, awe-inspiring things. So why do I bring up McAuley alumni's achievements?

It's because a lot of these women have had to face huge obstacles to get where they're at now, have had to work three times harder than students from wealthier schools.

They've had to face the culture shock of leaving their family, their community and a predominantly Pasifika high school to attend a university where being Pacific is a minority, where being humble - a virtue ingrained in Pasifika people - isn't going to cut it if you want to stand out in a class of over 600.

Casually making a "joke" about the appearance of young girls won't affect Simi and his podcast co-hosts, but it will surely hurt the confidence of many of those McAuley students targeted.

I worry they'll lose pride in a school uniform now associated with the "manly" insult lobbed at them by those deemed more powerful because they have a following larger than their ego.

To all past, present and future McAuley students, Domine In Te Speravi - Lord in you I hoped.

It's a motto that lives on for us, alongside our memories of beating the odds in Tamaki Makaurau.

• Sela Jane Hopgood is the Pacific communities editor of Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ on Air. New Zealand born Tongan, she writes stories about issues affecting the Pacific communities across Aotearoa.
• First published in The Spinoff, republished with permission.

Strengthening the legislation against incitement of hatred and discrimination was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry after the March 15 attacks in Christchurch.

Last year the Government unveiled its proposals and invited the public to have its say, including creating a new criminal offence with harsher penalties and protections for more minority groups.

The proposals faced tough scrutiny, particularly from Opposition MPs who were concerned about the implications for free speech, and Justice Minister Kris Faafoi appeared to struggle at times to properly explain how they would be implemented. Read more

The proposals themselves seemed to have stirred up strong reactions among people, including among some Christian churches and societies.

Depending on what YouTube's algorithm has decreed you should enjoy watching, some of these reactions might be stirred by videos of so-called free-speech advocates rejecting "hate speech laws" as infringements upon the sanctity of the "free marketplace of ideas".

By criminalising communication based on the emotions it intends to bring about, it is alleged that the Government's proposals would stifle people's ability to freely exchange and communicate ideas.

In support of this stance, the quote (misattributed to the philosopher Voltaire) will often be heard: "I may hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This line, however, seems to overlook another serious challenge to the operation of the free speech "marketplace": hatred itself.

Hatred posits that individuals, or the groups to which they belong, are enemies or threats which should be opposed.

The effect is a definitive conversation-stopper. "I hate who those people are, but I will defend to the death their right to say whatever they want," said no one ever.

For Christians, there is an additional dimension to this issue.

As the opposite of Christian love or charity, hatred towards others not only causes problems for interpersonal relations; according to the New Testament, the person who hates is in darkness or in a relation of hatred towards God (1 John 2:9 and 1 John 4:20).

Judging others, we are warned, entails that we should expect to be judged in the same way by God because all such judging involves projection: attending to the sawdust in another's eye and neglecting the plank in our own (Matthew 7:2-3).

In a short essay on "Hell as Hatred", the Christian mystic Thomas Merton imagines hell as a place wherein all the occupants are trapped in a perpetual cycle of self-projection, in which they "know others hate what they see in them: and all recognise in one another what they detest in themselves."

The Gospel of John offers a powerful illustration of how only a speech-act of love breaks through this cycle of judgement and hatred.

In John 8:1-11, Jesus is presented with a woman caught in adultery. Instead of joining the hostile group of male accusers in condemning the woman they surround, Jesus states that "he who is without sin" should cast the first stone.

To this, the woman's accusers leave the scene without speaking.

What begins as a confrontation, act of judgement, and threat of death towards the woman, is dissolved by Christ pointing out the hypocrisy underneath such judgement.

It also powerfully illustrates our earlier observation about the inverse relationship between hatred and "free speech": hate-driven accusations do not initiate conversation, and so must also end in silence.

While it remains to be seen how the legislative proposals may be applied (or misapplied) within the courtrooms of this country, the Government's proposals are in principle ones that free speech advocates — and particularly those within the Christian faith — can and should support.

• Dr Greg Marcar is a research affiliate with the Centre for Theology and Public Issues at the University of Otago.
• First published in the ODT. Republished with permission.

The proposal, which the Government "agrees to in principle", is to make illegal "hate speech" against a range of different groups of people.

This is a very dangerous step for any society to make.

It seems incongruous, doesn't it? Surely protecting people from hatred is a good thing, especially if those people are a vulnerable minority.

The trouble comes, as the 20th century has so violently taught us, that the moment governments take the authority away from people to speak freely and openly (even forcefully) about things we disagree on, is the moment we open the door to tyranny.

Jim Flynn eloquently stated before his death last year, that in the pursuit of truth, you either have a contest of ideas or you have a contest of power.

"When you forbid certain ideas, the only way you can be effective is by being more powerful. So it becomes a contest of strength," Flynn said.

He is right.

It doesn't matter if the ideas outlawed come from the left or the right of the political spectrum, the end result will inevitably be violence.

Under Lenin and Stalin's Russia, it was the voices on the right who were silenced and exterminated.

Under Hitler's Nazi Germany it was the voices on the left who were silenced and exterminated.

Chris Trotter writing in this page last month (July 2, 2021) described "the urge to suppress ideas and beliefs which contradict what one fervently believes to be the truth is not a healthy urge. It is a totalitarian urge."

Currently in Western culture, the dominant voice on social media that ruthlessly silences opposing voices comes from the political left of centre.

But it will not always be so.

There have been and are currently today, many regimes that are just as dominant on the political right.

It could be argued (if we are allowed to argue) that there is truth in both directions; the left's desire for equality for all people and the right's desire to see freedom for the individual, both need to have their contest of ideas allowed to be voiced / spoken / printed / drawn and sung, for truth to be discovered.

I wonder what Jacinda Ardern means by "hate speech"?

I wonder how our judges will interpret this phrase should it pass into law?

In the discussion document from the Ministry of Justice called: "Proposals against incitement of hatred and discrimination", it is stated that: "Hate speech is a broad term that is not used in Aotearoa law. It is generally defined as speech that attacks an individual or group based on common characteristics, for example ethnicity, religion or sexuality."

Well that doesn't really help me much.

The next question in my mind is what does "speech that attacks" mean? Continue reading

• Stu Crosson is the senior minister of Hope Church, Dunedin.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Kris Faafoi contradicted each other about what the proposals said, and Ardern has admitted the government could have been clearer in its communications.

Some worthy efforts have been made to tackle the substance of the proposals, but RNZ's Mediawatch noted much of the initial coverage focused on this political argie-bargie.

Instead, we'll look at exactly what the six proposals say - one proposal at a time, with a focus specifically on what new laws would look like - then explore why it's so confusing and what happens next.

Some provisos

Before we get started, bear in mind there are already some other laws that apply to harmful speech including the Summary Offences Act 1981, the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, the Harassment Act 1997 and the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act 1993.

Keep in mind also that none of what has been proposed is final - the ministry is seeking feedback and there's no guarantee the law, if it is enacted, will look like this. At this point it's not a law, it's not an Act, it's not even a Bill.

Instead, it's a discussion document aimed at seeking opinions before the ministry comes up with a law change, after that was recommended by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque attacks.

Less than three weeks remain on this round of consultation, with submissions closing on 6 August.

The commission identified some gaps in the current laws that leave some people facing regular abuse with no way to have the courts do anything about it.

It also suggested increasing penalties imposed for hate-motivated crimes, but that is not dealt with by the proposals below.

The Justice Ministry's discussion document largely focuses on the problems of the current laws and what the new laws aim to do, but - and this is perhaps one reason for the confusion - most of it largely does not give the specific wording of what is being proposed. This makes reading the document somewhat like having a set of directions without knowing where you're going to end up.

However, in the second appendix is a chart that includes the six proposed changes to be made, what the current laws are like, and a section of notes on each proposal (but not in that order).

To keep it simple we'll largely focus on the result.

Proposal 1: Who it applies to

The wording of both section 61 and the proposed new section 131 (see Proposal 2 below) would be changed so that they apply to communications aimed at certain groups of persons in or coming to Aotearoa New Zealand who are protected from discrimination by section 21 of the Human Rights Act.

Instead of outlawing certain communications about people based on colour, race, ethnicity or nationality alone, the law would protect the groups protected from discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act.

That could include discrimination on the basis of:

• Sex or sexual orientation *
• Marital status or family status
• Religious belief or ethical belief
• Colour, race, ethnicity, nationality or citizenship
• Disability
• Age
• Political opinion
• Employment status (including receiving a government benefit)
  * See also, Proposal 6 for trans inclusion

Despite the concrete way the proposal is worded in this section of the document, the government is seeking feedback on which groups from the above should be included under hate speech laws, noting on page four it "may include some or all of the other grounds in the Human Rights Act".

While Ardern initially told Newshub that political opinion would not be covered by hate speech and later in Parliament said Cabinet had decided to exclude political opinion from the proposals, the discussion document does not safeguard political opinion specifically.

When questioned in Parliament, Ardern would not rule out political opinion falling under these laws, saying it would depend on consultation with the public.

Safe to say it's an ongoing discussion. Continue reading

• Russell Palmer is a Digital Political Journalist with RNZ

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.

The fiery reaction was entirely predictable for anyone who understands New Zealanders' passive-aggressive relationship with authority. While most will tolerate stringent restrictions on their freedom in times of emergency — such as during war or at the height of a pandemic — a marked hostility to being told what we can say or how to behave lurks not far beneath. The furious opposition to Helen Clark's anti-smacking law in 2007 should have given Ardern at least a tiny clue as to how her hate-speech proposals might be received.

Firm opposition to the proposed changes — which would expand the list of protected groups to include not only religion but possibly also sexuality, gender, age, disability and employment status — has come from across the political spectrum, ranging from John Minto on the left to Richard Prebble and Family First on the right and numerous other critics in between.

It would have helped immensely, of course, if both Ardern and her Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, had been able to answer questions put to them by television journalists about the scope and implications of the law changes but both politicians — faced with perfectly reasonable queries about real-life situations — failed miserably.

Ardern was adamant initially that political opinion would not be added as a protected category but later admitted it could be.

The fact neither politician had taken the time to inform themselves fully about changes that have been under discussion for several years represents an extraordinary dereliction of duty — as well as being deeply insulting to voters who are concerned about having fundamental freedoms curtailed.

Ardern has realised she is in trouble. As Act leader David Seymour put it, she is "twisting and turning" on hate speech so much "she could almost qualify to represent New Zealand in gymnastics" in her attempts to get safely out of harm's way.

Her first line of defence is the classic Pontius Pilate manoeuvre of shifting responsibility away from herself. If she isn't identified as the driving force in the push for a law change, it will seem much less like a personal failure if the intense public reaction forces a backdown.

Interviewed last week, she said: "The reason we're having this debate is because the Royal Commission of Inquiry [into the mosque attacks] said to the New Zealand government, ‘You need to include religion.'"

It is a sentiment she has repeated in Parliament but the Royal Commission's report was released publicly on December 8 last year while new hate speech laws were promised within weeks of the mosque attacks in 2019.

Ardern also campaigned on extending legal protections for groups that experience hate speech before last year's election in October.

As well as trying to shift responsibility to the Royal Commission, Ardern appears to be looking to guarantee a way out for herself by declaring that such a law change requires bipartisan support.

Speaking to RNZ, she managed to roll together her principal lines of defence in a single — albeit convoluted — sentence: "So I would reach out to those across all sides of the House and say, ‘Look, given we have been called on to do this, I'd be very interested in what their view is and what they would see as being a way to make sure that we are bringing in those who were at the most extreme end of an experience.'"

In that interview, she acknowledged bipartisan support was needed to ensure any legislation of this kind was going to endure. And in answering Judith Collins in the House, she reinforced that view by saying: "Ultimately, I want these provisions to last as long as the last [hate speech] provisions, which are broadly similar and were introduced 50 years ago."

Yet Ardern knows already — and has for some time — that National and Act are implacably opposed. Last week, David Seymour described the moves as "cancel culture on steroids"; in April, he began a series of free speech meetings the length of the country to oppose any expansion of existing restrictions; in his Address in Reply last November he pledged to gather signatures for a citizens' initiated referendum to overturn any law that mandated new restrictions on free speech.

Last September, after Ardern's visit to the Al Noor mosque, Collins was emphatic she wouldn't support any further loss of freedom of speech. "I'm very clear that our human rights legislation already deals with what needs to be dealt with."

She also promised last week that National would repeal any such law if a government she led came to power, and described the debate as "a total cluster, frankly, and the government needs to stop this now and back away".

Her justice spokesman, Simon Bridges, slated the proposals as "Orwellian".

So, if Ardern knows there is absolutely no chance of bipartisan support across Parliament's divide, why is she continuing to run this particular line? The only plausible explanation for a Prime Minister holding an outright majority is that she is looking to avoid humiliation over a backdown by blaming the lack of support by the Opposition.

In what looks like another move to ease her path away from enacting hate-speech legislation, Ardern is also emphasising that the proposals are a "discussion document". Presumably this is an attempt to make the proposed law change look more tentative than many suspect was intended before the extent and intensity of opposition were revealed.

If Ardern had wanted a thorough discussion of the proposals with a genuine intention to listen and respond, she would have made sure that the window for the public's input was much wider than the six weeks allowed.

Giving the public only until August 6 to make submissions on the changes came as a surprise to Canterbury University law dean Ursula Cheer. As she told RNZ: "I would have thought for a very complex consultation and proposed changes to a law like this, it would be a bit longer. I would have thought to the end of August at least."

The fact that the opportunity for public comment is so short — and indeed that the public has been kept in the dark for so long — appears to be no accident. The Ministry of Justice has obviously not been as sanguine about the popularity of a law change as Ardern professed to be when campaigning.

The ministry has been quietly consulting "affected groups" — including the Muslim community — for some time, in a process driven behind the scenes by the Human Rights Commission, which has long been in favour of more restrictions on speech.

As the Ministry of Justice put it: "In 2019, the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission met with groups that are most likely to be targeted by hate speech to better understand their experiences and views." Of course, they are the very groups most likely to be firmly in favour of a law change.

In March 2020, the Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite said that hate speech was a "tricky thing" to navigate. One of the ministry's aims was to "have a conversation about this and avoid protests."

Kibblewhite was reported as saying that the Human Rights Commission had led some of the work around a law change alongside the ministry as it wanted the conversation to happen away from the political fray — given that a proposed law change could easily be derailed with so many strongly held views.

The kind of strongly held views, in fact, that have erupted into public view this week and which look as if they might derail the Prime Minister's cherished plans after all.

• Graham Adams is a journalist, columnist and reviewer who has written for many of the country's media outlets including Metro, North & South, Noted, The Spinoff and Newsroom.
• First published on Democracy Project. Republished with permission.

She promised to include religion under legislation that deals with hate speech and discrimination.

"In a modern New Zealand, everyone would agree no one should be discriminated for their religion.

"It makes sense that we add this to the suite of other things, we say it is just not OK to discriminate people over", she said.

Adern's promise came yesterday during a visit to Al Noor mosque to unveil a memorial plaque in memory of the March 15 attacks and was responding to the push for change by the Imam Gamal Fouda.

The policy announcement was not planned, but a response to Fouda's view that outlawing hate speech would prevent another attack like the one at Al Noor mosque.

"Freedom of speech becomes hate speech. Hate turns into hate crime as we have seen at the 15th of March", Fouda said, taking the opportunity to push for change.

"I'd like to see a new law in New Zealand and I think New Zealand has seen a lot and we went through a lot. The blood of those people shouldn't be forgotten," he said.

A clampdown on hate speech will not go ahead under National and ACT.

"I believe ultimately in freedom of speech with certain limitations that we've all accepted," said National leader Judith Collins.

"The promise of tougher hate speech laws shows the danger of a left-wing government to our fundamental rights and freedoms", said ACT leader David Seymour.

"Hate speech laws are divisive and dangerous, turning the debate into a popularity contest where the majority can silence unpopular views using the power of the state", he said.

New Conservative leader Leighton Baker warns that the first freedom society loses is when a society loses its freedom of speech.

"The only real definition of hate speech is inciting someone to commit an act of violence, and we have laws to protect against this now.

"We must be able to discuss ideas in a free and democratic society", Baker said.

Currently, there is no specific hate speech law in New Zealand.

Hate speech is covered by The Human Rights Act on the grounds of colour, race or ethnicity - not religion.

Ardern confirmed Labour intends not stopping just with religion and promises to include sexual orientation, age or disability.

Sources

• TVNZ
• Newshub
• Scoop

The Government fast-tracked a review of hate speech legislation in the wake of the March 15 Christchurch terror attack last year.

Justice Minister Andrew Little declared existing legislation on the issue "woefully inadequate."

Following a Human Rights commission review, presented in December last year, the Justice Ministry and Human Rights Commission presented Little with options.

In March, he said these were "working their way through" the cabinet process, and that he expected an announcement within weeks.

But on Tuesday, he told Stuff Labour was still in talks with its government partners and confirmed the legislation would likely not go to Cabinet until after the election.

Some NZ First MPs claim the party is yet to see any policy and indicated it was unlikely to support the law.

A survey conducted by Netsafe in 2019 found that:

• Three-quarters of respondents would support new legislation to stop online hate
• A similar proportion considers that more than that is needed to prevent its spread
• 8 in 10, believe that everyone has a role to play in addressing hateful speech
• More than half disagreed with the idea that people should be entitled to say whatever they want online. A quarter do not have a an opinion

The Human Rights Commission thinks the term hate speech can be misleading.

In a report presented the government in December 2019 they say it is often used loosely and pejoratively to imply a moral breach and is directed at the speech or expression itself.

"However, hate speech laws are not intended to protect people from offence or to suppress ideas.

They are targeted at the effect that the expression has on the minds of third parties."

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• hrc.co.nz
• netsafe.org.nz
• Image: heconversation.com

A spokesperson for the university has described the group's views as abhorrent but said they are protected by freedom of speech. Read more

The suspected white supremacist in Christchurch, New Zealand, accused of killing 51 worshippers "OK" hand gesture during an initial court appearance. Read more

Phelps-Roper is the granddaughter of Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church known for picketing funerals of U.S. service members.

Since leaving the church, Megan has become an advocate for people and ideas she was once taught to despise Read more

Domenico Bettinelli, a pro-life activist from Massachusetts, immediately wrote a blog post about Facebook taking down the Divine Office passage.

Facebook had said it took it down because it violated Facebook's "Community Standards on hate speech".

The quote says:

"Let us never assume that if we live good lives we will be without sin; our lives should be praised only when we continue to beg for pardon.

"But men are hopeless creatures, and the less they concentrate on their own sins, the more interested they become in the sins of others.

"They seek to criticise, not to correct. Unable to excuse themselves, they are ready to accuse others."

Bettinelli likens the quote to the gospel of Matthew 7:3, in which Jesus talks about pulling the log out of your own eye before accusing someone else of having a splinter in theirs.

In his blog, he asked if the Gospel would also be "hate speech by Facebook's standards?"

Bettinelli also posted the quote on Facebook after he saw the social media giant had flagged it after two priests posted it.

The priests said they thought an algorithm rather than a person would flag the content.

After his post was also removed, Bettinelli asked for a human review appealing the decision.

His appeal was rejected.

"I still don't understand why this is hate speech," he wrote in his blog.

"It's a quote from a Catholic saint who expresses the opposite of hate speech. He is essentially restating the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospels to stop worrying about what the other guy is or isn't doing and worry about your own flaws.

"Is Facebook saying that the Gospel is hate speech?"

Bettinelli's blog continues: "But what's worse is that I have no more understanding now of what is a violation of your [Facebook's] community standards than I did before. I cannot for the life of me figure out why you label this hate speech."

A Facebook spokesperson has confirmed the post has been reviewed and said it was removed in error.

The post has now been restored.

Source

• Catholic Heralsd
• Image: Integrated Catholic Life

Source

In a policy update on Tuesday, Twitter said it would take down "dehumanising language" that targets specific religious groups.

Examples of the type of language that would be removed would be the description of a user's religion as "disgusting" or referring to them as "filthy animals". Read more

Little wants the review to focus on "whether our laws properly balance the issues of freedom of speech and hate speech".

He seems to want a bob each way on this question.

On the one hand, he has defended free speech - the right, within very broad limits, to say whatever we wish - as being a fundamental principle of free society.

On the other, he has claimed "current law specific to hate speech offences [is] very narrow".

In particular, he has asked whether it is right "that we have sanctions against incitement of disharmony on racial grounds but not, for example, on grounds of religious faith".

There is an obvious point of difference between ethnicity and religion in respect of Little's question.

Ethnicity is an element of personal identity; it is something one is, rather than something one believes.

Religions, on the other hand, like political doctrines, are ideologies.

It would be especially dangerous to go down the road of protecting ideological beliefs from criticism on the grounds that those holding them might be offended.

Israel Folau recently lost his lucrative rugby career over comments that homosexuals are condemned to hell when they die.

Predictably enough, his comments were labelled hate speech. But those comments were made on religious grounds and while, no doubt, most modern Christians are accepting of homosexuality, the Bible condemns it as a sin in both the old and new testaments.

It's easy to see from this example how hate speech legislation protecting both sexuality and religious beliefs could end in a quagmire of legal absurdity: Folau might have been prosecuted for hate speech against homosexuality, while simultaneously claiming those criticising him were themselves guilty of hate speech against his religion.

More broadly, is the question of what should be protected as free speech, and what should be condemned as hate speech, really one of balance, as Little has asserted?

I argue it is not. Continue reading

• Dr Michael Johnston is Associate Dean (Academic) in the School of Education at Victoria University of Wellington.
• Image: Stuff

Both ACT party leader David Seymour and Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki appear to agree that people should be allowed to express their opinions. But they appear to have travelled from opposite directions to arrive at the same conclusion.

Seymour says that what is insulting or offensive to one person may be seen by another person to be an honestly held and freely expressed belief.

He says freedom of speech is extremely important and politicians shouldn't be introducing any legislation that means people could be criminalised on the basis of opinion rather than fact.

So presumably Seymour does not object to Tamaki's tweeted opinion that, if anyone says any part of the Bible is hate speech, "This will be war".

"How dare secular, liberal, left-leaning atheists openly attempt to legislate our founding faith, Christianity or the Bible as hate speech."

Protecting religious groups
Seymour says the crimes act already makes it clear it is a crime to incite another person to commit a crime or threaten someone with violence.

But justice minister Andrew Little says the law that prohibits the incitement of racial disharmony does not apply to religious faith.

He has asked his ministry to work with the Human Rights Commission to look into whether New Zealand's laws sufficiently balance issues of freedom of speech and hate speech.

Protecting people from religious groups
In the past, Ardern has also been reluctant to say criticism of others by religious groups should be controlled by law. In 2018, when Israel Folau first expressed an opinion about LGBTQ, she told Newshub "I disagree with him but I'm very careful about how I categorise someone's speech."

Source

• newshub.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• Image: radionz.co.nz