ACT’s David Seymour slams ‘out of his depth’ Kris Faafoi on hate speech proposals
ACT leader David Seymour says Justice Minister Kris Faafoi’s responses to questions about proposed new hate speech laws show he’s “out of his depth”.
Faafoi was grilled on the new proposals on Newshub Nation on Saturday, host Tova O’Brien throwing a range of scenarios at him – such as whether Millennials could be prosecuted for hating Boomers over house prices, or saying gay people are going to hell.
Faafoi said he was “not going to nickel and dime every case”, and it would be up to police whether to prosecute – the bar being whether the speech was inciting hatred towards a particular group.
“I’m the Minister of Justice, I don’t get to decide that,” he said.
Seymour, who has campaigned against “cancel culture” and deplatforming controversial speakers like Don Brash, said Faafoi “shrugged his shoulders” at the tough questioning.
“When interpreting the law, courts often look to speeches from the minister responsible to see what Parliament really intended a law to mean,” he said after Newshub Nation aired.
“They won’t get any help from Kris Faafoi, who couldn’t answer what speech was likely to face prosecution… That’s because he can’t say.
“Hate speech is subjective and politicised. Faafoi knows Police will end up facing pressure to prosecute people with unpopular views. “When they face that pressure, the first thing they’ll think is ‘well, even the guy behind this law didn’t know.”
Jesus wept, there is a train crash and then there is Kris Faafoi. Tova ripped him to pieces on Newshub today, he couldn’t explain how something as subjective as ‘hate’ would be judged other than tell us the Police will decide.
How terrifying.
The Police are to judge what is hateful and prosecute based on that?
The current line is incitement to violence, that is very clear, but a subjective hate test based on brittle feelings is a recipe for disaster.
Every time Kris Faafoi opens his mouth to justify strangling off free speech, a Fairy dies and ACT gains 2 more votes!
Labour’s hate speech test is whatever an emotional micro aggression policing mummy blogger on The Spin-off would feel aggrieved by!
The debate must be about anti-harassment protections, not an erosion of free speech, the Left should be the champions of free speech, not the stranglers of it!
How the fuck will you police political opinion for Christ’s sake?
This looming hate speech debate is supposedly a response to the white supremacist terror attack in Christchurch, but the solutions of criminalising hate speech are all identity politic based intersectionist roulette virtue signals that will obscenely use the terror attack to justify gagging speech that the woke can’t tolerate while not protecting us from another white supremacist terror attack!
How does a blasphemy law & criminalizing the misuse of pronouns protect us from another white supremacy terrorism act? The Christchurch atrocity happened because of a complete failure of the NZ intelligence apparatus- banning speech lets their failure off the hook!
Because we live in a liberal progressive democracy I DO TOLERATE RELIGION! I tolerate Scientology, I tolerate people who believe in a magical flying invisible wizard for their morality & I tolerate churches not paying tax – I won’t however tolerate them criminalising my criticism!
Who will misuse the new hate speech blasphemy laws first?
Scientologists?
Glorivale Brethren?
Bishop Brian Tamaki?
Under these new proposed hate speech laws, Life of Brian would have been banned!
For those pretending that the looming hate speech laws won’t unleash a tsunami of police complaints and give-a-little funded private prosecutions, look at the needlessness of the SUFW case and shudder.
This government needs to spend far more time on housing, child poverty, education, welfare, infrastructure, climate change and inequality and far, far, far less time on social engineering vanity projects to criminalise you for word crimes!
If Government wants to make NZ more ‘socially cohesive’ they should build more houses, use a wider range of taxes against corporations and fully fund mental health, education and public health – they shouldn’t implement blasphemy laws and criminalising misuse of pronouns!
Mark my words comrades, I told you muppets that deplatforming those two crypto fascists in Auckland would only wake the dormant electoral fault line of ACT and it did! The more the woke attempt to cancel free speech, the more the right win! The Left should be championing free speech, not trying to kill it off!
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
If Government wants to make NZ more ‘socially cohesive’ they should deport Gary Lin and defund monotheism.
It’s disgraceful.
The mans a clown way out of his depth.
Am I now guilty of hate speech directed at Faafoi?
If I say this government is not at all interested in fulfilling its campaign promises but rather more concerned with gagging opinion stifling free speech,building cyclists a billion dollar bridge am I inciting hate?
I really cannot believe this is happening in New Zealand.
No you would not be guilty. The proposals relate to inciting extreme hatred or discrimination towards protected groups of people, not individuals.
It’s been stated a thousand times that individuals having a go at another individual or group such as blogs, facebook etc will not meet the threshold of this law and was never intended too. You may express your thoughts same as before but unless you intend to form a hatred group towards others for the purpose of stirring up unlawful action then your fine to carry on as before. I may have a go at you for some subject but it doesn’t mean I hate you and intend to take illegal action. Storm in a tea cup this whole thing.
Controlling speech and counter-terrorism are too different concepts each with its own distinct responses. Put it thus way. What’s it going to take before Jacinda fires every defence chief and police chief and starts again? 51 deaths? 100? A million?
The process is very simple. If standards are not at the very least being maintained then a verbal warning is given, continual attitude problems warrents a deciplinary letter and if they are truly argumentative then a formal deciplary hearing to discuss the future is a Prime Minister would meet an elementary level of counter-terrorism.
“Snowflake! Snowflake!Snowflake! Snowflake!Snowflake! Snowflake!Snowflake! Snowflake!Hate!Hate!Hate!Snowflake! Snowflake!Snowflake! Snowflake!Snowflake! Snowflake!Snowflake! Snowflake!Hate!Hate!Hate!Snowflake!Snowflake! Snowflake!Snowflake! Snowflake!”
Will this get me arrested?
This is Hilters Nazi Yoof enabled and set loose in society, social media, political campaigns too replicate Qanon right-wing ideology for the woke on the left.
They’re fucked now and so to is Labour.
Seriously! Act and NZF and the Nats could be the government if the cease this opportunity because Labour as we all know is their own worst enemy.
No
You should join The Greens coms team, GreenBus.
Must be heavy lobbying going on behind the scenes. As for religion, if faith is going to be protected from ridicule (i.e. the ability to poke holes in their unverifiable, non falsifiable, evidence free magical thinking) then everything has to be a protected, including someone’s personal ideology and position on race, gender, appearance, politics and so on. The religious will need to understand my atheism, embrace it, and learn to love it, and walk on eggshells whenever they use religious language or use religious symbolism, because frankly it bloody well offends me.
The Christchurch massacre didnt just happen because of intelligence letting us down this was like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Race relations have come to the fore in our country mainly due to Maori standing up and saying we have had enough of being treated like second class citizens. The evidence is and has been there for a long time about access and issues relating to equity. Yet this evidence has been ignored instead we as a country have just carried on doing the same old practises with little and in most cases no improvements in all facets of life. Covid has exposed so many issues in our country including the deep seated racism. When we have those in power espousing racism abusing there power and using there voice to be socially devisive then what do you expect to happen.
The dude was Australian for gods sake.
The trouble with loopy Critical Race Theory and declaring the tap water racist is no one is listening when we get an actual whack job because everyone has already been declared racist.
Colonisation equal assimilation and assimilation equals superiority, racism and discrimination and one does not need to come from Australia we have plenty here.
yeah nah covid is pa. Tarrant’s nationality is the key factor in this atrocity that dumb arse Kiwis keep overlooking. He WASN”T a product of OUR society.He is NOT a Kiwi. His values and upbringing are NOT of Aotearoa. the Australin colonial experince was radically different of ours. Once again the total ignorance of Trans Tasman History is at the forefront of this debate.
It does you no credit at all to equate the History of NZ/Aotearoa with that of Australia and the experience of growing up there with that of growing up in NZ. It has been brushed under the carpet continually because our government is pig ignorant and prefers to be told how to interpret our History by Tangata Whenua with an axe to grind. Tarrant’s nationality is the crux of this whole tragedy . If he was a Kiwi and did this in Australia what would have happened??????? You need to to expand the narrow base of your thinking on this.
I watched this interview and my take was that you could call all Jews/blacks/politicians etc names and say how much you hate them… while racist it wont be against the law, but if you say lets all go beat up or kill them that’s hate speech. The test seems to be incitement to violence. Admittedly it wasn’t very well articulated by Chris and will most certainly be open to interpretation. My opinion is that its poorly written and needs far more work if its is ever to live up to what Chris seemed to expect the outcome to be.
Kim, that is the law as it stands: You can say whatever you like but incitement to violence is illegal.
Your take is wrong. That’s the law as it is right now. The new law makes any insult that may excite hostility illegal.
If I say ‘Islam is a religion that justifies war in a holy cause.’ Am I (a) justifying terrorism against muslims(b) inciting hatred of a group of people(c) telling the truth.
If I say ‘ The Chinese Communist Party holds people in detention without trial, suppresses free speech and does not observe the rule of law’. Am I (a) insulting our major trading partner(b) inciting hatred against people of Chinese nationality(c) telling the truth.
If I say ‘Israel is oppressing Palestinians through police and military aggression and illegal land occupations’. Am I (a) anti – semitic(b) opposed to injustice by any group of people(c) telling the truth.
If a muslim says I, as an ‘infidel’ and a ‘kaffir’ that is doomed to the fires of hell because I do not belong to the true faith, is the muslim allowed to say this because (a) some crazy dude killed a lot of muslims in Christchurch and so muslims are allowed to say shit like this because people must feel sorry for them( they are us). (b) babbling nonsense that some slave trading merchant is supposed to have said to build up a following in Arabia like, around two thousand years ago. (c) not guilty of hate speech because guilt only applies to white-skinned people.
Could it be that evil exists in the hearts and minds of people and no number of laws and regulations will change that? That only time and changes in culture and society caused the end of such evils as southern lynching of black people by white people, ended apartheid in South Africa and caused the fall of oppressive regimes in Eastern Europe?
Absolutely none of these examples you have given would meet the thresholds as described by Faafoi and the discussion document for the time being.
You can voice your opinion on any issue, provided that opinion is not designed to incite hate. By saying that Islam is a religion that justifies war, or the CCP holds people in detention, you might be intending to get people annoyed and take action against those groups, but that is a far cry from hatred, because it is a rational response to something that is seen as unjust and against our laws. The intention there isn’t to get people to simply “hate” those groups.
As for the muslim saying that an infidel is doomed to the fires of hell, well again, if they’re trying to incite real hatred against these ‘infidels’, then absolutely that would be covered under the hate speech laws. If they’re just voicing their opinion about an individual? No, that doesn’t cover the group test. If they’re voicing their opinion about a group that isn’t for the purpose of hate, violence or extreme insult, then no, that would not pass the test either.
Unbelievable – Cancel culture has cancelled Charlie Chaplin.
Cancel Culture Gone Too Far
Faafoi is frighteningly negligent and if Adern and the rest of her colleagues see this as their main mission in life then they have chosen the wrong guy to bring it about and sell it to the country !!
This whole issue is a diversion to the crises we have to deal with after decades of self enforced economic suppression of social services , income disparity and paying the wealthy and corporates to maintain their position by paying little or no tax and maintaining strict austerity measures that have left us with serious problems to confront.
Bomber why instead is no one talking about the massive internal security failure that allowed this slaughter in the first place and the monumental waste of tax payer money that has been spent to supposedly prevent such atrocities to now bring us to a law change about the freedom of speech which is going to join the list of seriously bad law written up during a time of overhyped hysteria.
Or the fact police gave a gun license to an unvetted foreign terrorist then lied to the public and said it was by the book and never got held accountable.
Quite a preventable tragedy if people had simply done their jobs.
My prediction, for what it’s worth, is that this legislation will be watered down to something that even ACT will find acceptable. Hate Speech (IMO) is not ‘Unpopular Speech’ as that fucktard Seymour would have us believe. If Bomber wants to play ‘the thought police are coming for me’ shtick, then that’s up to him. Me, I’ll be keeping my powder dry for the actual legislation before going off on some wank fest rant of Stasi/Gestapo rethoric.
My prediction, for what it’s worth, is that this legislation will be watered down to something that even ACT will find acceptable. Hate Speech (IMO) is not ‘Unpopular Speech’ as that fucktard Seymour would have us believe. If Bomber wants to play ‘the thought police are coming for me’ shtick, then that’s up to him. Me, I’ll be keeping my powder dry for the actual legislation before going off on some wank fest rant of Stasi/Gestapo rethoric.
Excuse me you sanctimonious prick, have you actually had the Police come after you, breach your civil rights and destroy your credit rating in their illegal pursuit of Rawshark?
No?
Well shut the fuck up then.
You may have the Wellington luxury of hoping the erosion of civil rights and allowing the Police to define hatred will be watered down, my personal experience will not.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/11/06/breaking-5-years-and-finally-justice-nz-police-formally-apologise-settle-for-breaching-my-civil-rights/
It is reasonably likely that the NZ Police won’t spend a lot of energy policing any new hate speech laws, as they barely have the time & resources to keep a lid on violent crime in NZ. However there is a strong possibility that examples could be made of specific high profile individuals, as this would have a significant chilling effect on others speaking their minds or giving voice to their opinions. Self policing or policing by self appointed “hate speech” vigilantes would probably be common, but actually prosecutions would be rare, unless it furthered certain agendas. There is a lot of stuff going down & the future is looking increasingly worrying.
The vigilante would be claiming this and that were in breach and demanding police action. It would take the cancel culture up a notch and in a different direction. At some point that would settle down as court decisions provided case precedent.
You can demand Police action & they might open a file. They’ll only do more if they want to or it suits someone’s agenda.
They are all straw men, this counter disinformation thing I mean are all straw man arguments. They all essentially boil down to how much money can you put in the right pockets to keep this crazy machine we call modern life going. So if the infrastructure question is answered like water/good/energy/housing/job security then it takes all the straw arguments away and they just have no ground to stand on.
Back in 2002 I was one of many who received a police visit when there was some supposed threat to Tiger Woods while he was here for a golf tournament. We were tagged as suspects because we had made criticism of American government foreign policy – such as the plan to regime change in Iraq in my case (they even brought around messages I sent to their embassy, to let me know who was leading them by the nose).
Agree with you 6ft4. All this scare mongering is OTT. Not even legislation yet, and if fully implemented as is will not send the cops in for an old redneck abusing the left. How many times does this have to be spelled out?
The woke do not understand what you or I are saying. They seek justice. We must build it fir them. The more they kick and scream the better. We should just hitch there horse to a fucken tractor and drag it to water. No fucks given.
Faafoi is a journalist. Law is not even close to his field of expertise so of course he is at the bottom of the Atlantic when it comes to being out of his depth. He’s making Phil Twyford and Megan Woods look competent!
So out of depth is he, he throws the police under the bus because he, the Justice Minister, hasn’t got a clue about the very laws he wants passed. They’ll know eh Kris. How? You don’t and you are part of the creators of these laws.
And do the police have the resources for investigating hurt feelings? Going by the way they are missing so often lately, I doubt it.
“Faafoi is a journalist.”
I’m afraid even that’s debateable. He’s certainly the teacher’s pet, and I’m told a very nice guy.
I know a banker and a used car salesman that are also nice guys but I wouldn’t rely on either of them to give me financial advice or set me up with a car that wasn’t a bloody lemon.
Yes and Gerry B was a woodwork teacher and he was in charge of our Christchurch earthquake recovery.
The difference he did a pretty good job of getting Chch on track . Labour have held up many projects since taking power.
He did not do a good job, remember share an idea the biggest bit of democracy ever in Otautahi and that cretin scrapped it all.
Yes Trev and pigs can fly
That interview was dreadful. Jacinda must be hiding under her bed after watching that shocker.
He did not have a clue. I am guessing our Justice Minister doesn’t even know what is in this legislation. I am guessing he hasn’t read it. I guess this because he couldn’t answer a single bloody question. What a fucking turkey this guy is!
He more or less summed up the proposed laws as 100% subjective depending on how one holds their tongue, based on the direction of the wind at any given time of the day.
Grey on beige and opaque as a London fog in its clarity. Exactly the thing no legislation should ever be. It sounds so poorly researched I doubt anything could ever succeed in court.
Here is a snapshot of why this government cannot deliver on its promises, its manned by idiots!
This guy makes Phil Twyford look good .
I suspect he’s just the front man, implementing a cabinet decision. This government was agitating for stronger hate speech laws during their last term when Little was minister of justice.
I don’t see why you’re all so negative about this move. Socialism is inherently authoritarian so if you call yourself socialists you should be supporting this latest move. It’s part of the wider package, along with red flags, gulags and summary executions. Welcome to paradise on Earth comrades!
Absolutely XRAY
Manned by idiots.
Academics, Trade Unionsts, Civil Servants, Policy Writers nobody that’s ever run or owned a business.
Broken almost every promise made simply because they don’t know how to deliver them.
I call that extreme dishonesty.
Now they want to control your thoughts.
More lies John and your the only idiot here.
This reminds me of the use of the RB independence – monetary policy to manage inflation, taking the politics out of all those decisions for good or bad.
The Minister is talking about police independence as to determination of laying charges under the hate speech law, and then of course ultimately court determination of the law as it applied in the case before it.
Generally courts either do this based on a clear understanding of the meaning of the law, which has regard to the known intent of those who wrote it and otherwise related legislation that preceded it.
The lack of clarity is possibly based on government legislative direction being determined by future feedback.
If the standard becomes group dislike of a comment, then it will become Orwellian in the sense that those groups who you cannot criticise will rule over you. Which is quite an extreme change from being vulnerable to denigration and marginalisation. One day a feather duster the next cock of the roost to use an expression that might offend some people concerned about safe spaces.
I hate speech.
We should all communicate with the non-threatening, gender-neutral, multiracial, non-ageist, vegan Climate change-reversing sign language I’ve invented.
BTW, any suggestions for the sign “my tofu bicycle has melted?”
Jase,
Lovely piece of satire.
Wonderful.
John
.
Oh Jase you are a beautiful person,
Love John
“The current line is incitement to violence, that is very clear”
And that’s really all it needs to be, right? That should be the only limit on free speech, as far as I can see, Is there any argument for anything more?
This Govt, like all Govts but it seems especially so, love the ‘good intentions’ warm fuzzies for new regulation, they dont seem able to do the hard grunt work of likely and unintended actual consequences. Intention is everything, outcomes not so much fun
I made the call for all of you to support Seymour and anyone else opposing this terrible law. Painful as made made be for you. So then, here is your queue folks: > News: Judith Collins promises to reverse Government’s hate speech proposals, calls on Jacinda Ardern to front<.
Anyone not supporting Collins on this?
Yes and Gerry B was a woodwork teacher and he was in charge of our Christchurch earthquake recovery. Have you hear of the saying, knock on wood.
We’re waiting for the specific definition of hate speech? We don’t want the police to do it. We want Davis Seymour to do it? We want Faafoi to do it? We don’t want it done at all?
Maybe there can be a contest to come up with a definition or Mike Hosking can do a poll about it.
@ Mike the Lefty,
In agreement. This dreary old goop has been in the pipeline for a while and seems to be reaching ‘critical’ mass. Some think it will just ‘fade away’ like the old soldiers, others like the author of the linked article feel very much threatened and hope perhaps, for the return of the soldiering spirit. What was experienced twenty years ago in the U.S. has reached our Aotearoa cocoon, injecting the lethal divisive venom. A shame that satire is no longer permitted.
Comment 14 is interesting.
https://www.unz.com/
https://www.unz.com/masthead/#who-is-ron-unz
Comments are closed.