After a disastrous interview and now day 5 of total confusion, the u-turns are beginning…
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is not ruling out including political opinion in hate speech law changes, but promises the bar for prosecution would “remain high”.
…that’s right, the PM was wrong when she claimed Political opinion wouldn’t be part of the hate speech fiasco.
The danger of this stupid law is that it can be so open to interpretation, currently Labour’s hate speech test is whatever an emotional micro aggression policing mummy blogger on The Spinoff would feel aggrieved by.
Look, Comrades, you are not helping your cause by pretending the hate speech law is harmless, penalties are increasing from $7k fines & 3 months imprisonment to $50k fines & 3 years imprisonment- that’s a fucking enormous jump in penalty for crime the Police will define!
What does the legal brain I most admire most, the ever brilliant Graeme Edgeler have to say?
I’m still not convinced, and I hope to cover this in more details in future posts, but a big reason to oppose a change like this is the same reason to oppose any expansion of the criminal law. Imprisoning people is really harmful. Convicting people is really harmful. Prosecuting them is harmful. Being arrested, and even just being visited by police is harmful. If you are a person sympathetic toward the prison abolition movement, there are major red flags here. There are also all of the standard concerns about the focus of police discretion. Will those charged under this law be disproportionately brown, or poor, like with most other laws?
The most obvious concern is that the Government has not been clear about what it thinks the law will actually ban, and worryingly the Minister of Justice doesn’t seem to think he has a role in deciding what types of things this law would make illegal, nor more importantly, what types of things it would not make illegal.
In particular, the Government doesn’t appear to understand, and has never seemed to articulate what I described above – that its proposal as currently articulated (and as explained by the Royal Commission) decriminalises a bunch of currently criminal speech. It knows it is extending protections to cover other grounds of discrimination, but hasn’t grasped its proposal would move regulation of some sorts of hate speech that are currently prosecutable, to civil proceedings. And if the Government doesn’t realise this, and if the Government will not answer hypotheticals like those Tova O’Brien put to the Minister of Justice, people are right to be concerned.
Watching so many of my comrades on the Left pat themselves on the back for trying to pre-censor a movie none of them had seen & militantly demand the Police be given the power to define hate speech makes me feel like I’m at a Klan rally wearing a rainbow.
Comrades – we are the Left, we should be championing free speech, not repressing it! We can’t allow brittle millennial trigger culture to hand the State powers that history tells us will be used against us!
COME ON PEOPLE!
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
Agree completely Martyn.
Good article.
If this law seems harsh under Labour just wait if the Greens get any real power again white males will be outlawed .
Trevor S. James Shaw’s referring to, “ a group of Pakeha farmers down south,” gives credence to what you’re saying about the Green Party’s problem with the colour white.
Shaw was very offensive referencing farmers encapsulating their ethnicity and colour in one cheap little shot. Yet again, this looks like a politician trying inject ethnicity/ race into an issue where it almost certainly has no relevance.
Slimey, yes, playing to the gallery, yes, intended to denigrate, yes, But it would probably pass the sniff test for hate speech, and is a neat little example of the difficulties in trying to legislate against it.
I don’t know why Shaw said a group of Pakeha farmers ‘from down south,’ if he’s talking about West Coasters. Down South normally means from Otago and Southland, not the West Coast, and James should know this.
Shaw’s Green echo chamber may advise using the race card, but given the prevalence of mental health issues among sections of the farming community – people doing real work – a govt minister demonising them to appease the mean girls, isn’t good enough.
He wouldn’t have said a group of Maori Something, and he knows it.
But if someone else said a similar thing but changed the ethnicity and their occupation would it pass the “sniff test”? e.g. Muslim shopkeepers.
That’s the other reason for rejecting this law – it won’t be applied evenly. You can bet on it.
Andrew- Currently it seems to depend upon quite what one said about Muslim shop keepers, but I think we all know that it doesn’t necessarily require specific words or terminology to stoke hate; Shaw’s words are harmless in themselves, but just the saying of them as he did is a bit insidious, and expecting the New Zealand Police to monitor it all is unrealistic; they’d need linguists, and linguistics is quite a hard academic course of study, well beyond the grasp of most politicians – and the police have more important things to be doing than messing around with all this.
You’d think so wouldn’t you?
But once again, take a look at the UK. They have an army of clipboard toting ‘community constables’ who assiduously follow up on the slightest unwoke statement on twitter while the same police force looked the other way regarding a series of Muslim rape gangs operating around the north of England.
I know. And there’s worse in the Uk, one f University lecturer lost her job for saying that women have vaginas, Enid Blyton is now seditious, at least one of Shakespeare’s comedies is banned on racist grounds – but Mark Anthony’s ( I think) “Friends Romans and Countrymen “ speech is a good example of how to demonise in a civilised sort of way. People are reporting others’ twitters and tweets in the UK, and Facebook seems to be co-operating in closing down specific bloggers for their relatively harmless political and social views eg anti Harry and Meghan. Teaching will be a minefield now. Crying shame – teenagers used to love robust debates.
At this stage I’m wondering what languages we’ll be able to be naughty in – and there’s a guy down Glenavy who speaks Icelandic, if that’s any help. (Know many cops who speak Icelandic ?)
UK cops turned a blind eye to the Muslim rapists for fear of being seen to be racist in pursuing them – the young under-age girl victims didn’t matter because they were already at risk and were non- mainstream children, but the truth is probably that the cops were too lazy, and the decision makers were mainly men – who should all be put in the stocks and pelted with smelly stuff. ( Will I be able to say that again?)
I checked out what you refered too. It is funny that white pakeha farmers get a mention but when the Maori in Northland protest about the same thing nothing is said. This dual message is typical of the Green approach.
Its a discussion document. She can’t rule anything in or out until after it has moved to the actual law being presented in parliament being written, nor should she. Otherwise she is shutting down free speech of the people who had input into writing the discussion document before it can be consulted on and you know.. discussed and the good and bad figured out.
Yes Kim I agree with you. This is not final by any means and so many getting all lathered up over a discussion document that will be thoroughly debated, probably watered down and clarified. This is yet to happen and with so much aggro from lefties and right wing nutjobs at this early stage.
I just think this is so disingenuous of you both. If National had attempted to criminalize free speech, move penalties from 3months to 3years, included a blasphemy law and political opinion and then couldn’t actually explain what will be hate speech in 2 separate interviews you would both be screaming – but because it’s our side and we are so noble this vast erosion of civil rights is sweet as and any criticism is unfair is it?
Let me be clear, I don’t think Labour intend harm here, but intentions aside, what is being proposed is so bad the whole concept needs to be thrown out and started again.
Time will tell. I want hate speech criminalized, including and especially of the Politicians. I understand unintended consequences can cause some lose of freedom. So be it. I don’t believe for 1 second the cops will turn up at joe bloggs for anything but the most extreme and repetitive hate speech. Well known persons like yourself, Nicky Hager etc is another kettle of fish. A risk you take in your profession that shouldn’t be there at all, and is probably corrupt politicians at play. You don’t deserve that shit but there is a lot of nasty people around and as always happens the innocent suffer some lose.
Just let Greenbuses comment sink in there comrades.
You started by claiming no one should be frightened of this hate speech law and end up acknowledging that while it could take me and Nicky Hager out, that’s the price to pay to keep your feelings from being hurt by opinions you don’t like?
Are you even listening to yourself?
Isn’t that woke fascism?
You are more than happy to curtail our own civil rights while accepting it will hurt innocent people but that’s just identity politics collateral damage is it?
Where is there any morality, honour or ethics in a stance as fucking deranged as that?
There are times I wonder if I’m misinterpreting my middle class identity politics woke comrades, and then there are times when their naked violence for some grim intersectionist utopia raises its ugly civil rights crushing maw.
This time is the latter.
I, on the other hand, have been around long enough to learn to wait and see what i’m actually fighting before i take swings at everything that moves.
Let me be clear though. What is in the discussion document is way to far for my liking and i agree that if no one opposes it it will end up a lot worse than if no one says anything. I’m just not sure that you are blaming the right people. Just my opinion.
However, the more noise & objections you make at the early discussion phase, the more likely things that you don’t like are to be quietly dropped or changed. Once things have progressed and people have invested time & effort into writing actual legislation, there is less likelihood of that legislation is of being changed.
Letting the Police decide & use their discretion, is just asking for them to give their biases full reign. The Police are their to enforce the law, not make the law.
You and Nicky Hager were taken out by foul play, not free speech legislation from Jacinda Ardern. John Key I could believe.
Old pale stale males losing there privilege to put down beneficiaries, maori, asian, women, young people and anything else that’s not nailed down is the price we need to pay. Not you and Hager.
The rest of it I didn’t understand.
Ironically it could also be a big stick for feminism.
The more radical simply hate men as the most basic principle then get worse from there and most things published even by those not so bitter insult the male gender and arguably under this proposal, invite hatred against males.
Anything and everything will be up for grabs under this mess but silencing women would be a trip back in time. Maybe the law makers are more deviant than we give them credit for?
2023 a National-ACT – New Zealand First- Maori Party union barely wins the election.
David Seymour;’Well Judith – now we can repeal the Hate Speech Law’.
“ARE YOU COMPLETELY FUCKING MAD?’ Do you not realise how we can use it against the opposition?’
‘ Now we really are born to rule!’
I’m trying, my comments seem to be getting censored though…
Shaws racist comment seems to have avoided the attention it warrants.
Replace Pakeha with any other ethnicity and boom outrage.
bro get with the program: non whites can’t be racist according to CRT
But Wait! There’s More!
If you think this is bad, take a look at the Sexual Violence Bill
Excellent replies Martyn.
It’s really easy to objectively police the right to free speech.
It’s really hard to objectively police what constitutes ‘hate speech’.
So which law are we getting?
To be sure, free speech is not without cost. People will be hurt and offended, what the woke don’t seem to realise is that far more people will be hurt by this law. Those people who are hurt will disproportionately be the powerless and disenfranchised and it will be done to them by the rich and powerful.
John Souter I would think the rich and powerful as you call them wouldn’t want a bar of this Labour hate speech proposal.
It seems to be driven by the left which is bewildering as the left have historically been bastions of free speech.
‘…that its proposal as currently articulated (and as explained by the Royal Commission) decriminalises a bunch of currently criminal speech.’ I’m behind the times on this and not yet au fait with the proposal so am not sure what has been decriminalised. Would these include sermons from the pulpit which quote verses from The Old Testament especially those juicy ones from say, Exodus, Ezra, the Fourth book of Ezra or Deuteronomy?
And what if someone gave a lecture on The War Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls?
I was dragged along to an evangelical service some years ago. At one point members of the congregation jumped about delivering short speeches and prophesies in the aisle while the rest of company raised their arms in the air and praised the Lord.
One of these, a young gent, clutched his bible and began referencing Hitler, ‘Praise the Lord, Hitler understood this.’ I can’t remember what it was that Hitler was supposed to have understood but it had some connection with Jesus, ‘praise God, Praise the Lord.’
By the bye I came across a video the other day with a speaker intoning statements which were pledges. The outdoor ‘congregation’ were all ‘white biscuits’ (old Maori name for any Pakeha kid at a nearly all Maori country school) seated on the ground or standing. All had their hands in the air a la the evangelicals, and repeated the pledges in unison. A woke and post BLM phenomenon. (Sorry can’t find link immediately)
You may deconstruct religion for the people but you can’t take away the people from religion. Watch out for the inquisition. Oh for some satire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r03nyEWKaeY
Why has the NZ government (actually the diversity minister, Priyanka Radhahrishnan) asked for submissions on “social cohesion” without any widespread media coverage or promotion? It seems like a companion piece to the proposed hate speech law. It was opened for submissions on 25 June – 6 August. Who knew, so who will be responding?
https://social-cohesion.citizenspace.com/social-cohesion/public-consultation/
Is it going to result in an “inclusive society” that excludes those who disagree?
Will it be used to push through the discredited hate speech laws, under another name?
It’s to counteract that other divisive separatist agenda they’ve been hiding, which Winston Peters isn’t happy about and nor am I.
In the detail it seems to be focused on diversity of ethnic groups in response to the Mosque attacks. The minister mentions sexual orientation and gender identity at the beginning of her video, but those issues seem to be buried within the main focus on ethnicity – as they are in the hate speech bill.
The 6 ways of working towards social inclusion includes the hate speech bill.
The statements don’t define “social cohesion” – but the proposed hate speech bill, and the promotion of gender ideology seem to be achieving the opposite to any social cohesion or inclusiveness.
In my opinion, social cohesion cannot be achieved while there are vast income and wealth inequalities and the major housing unaffordability crisis.
Karolyn-IS “ In my opinion, social cohesion cannot be achieved while there are vast income and wealth inequalities and the major housing unaffordability crisis”
Precisely. Perhaps somebody needs to spell that out to the government.
The chasm between the “ haves” and “have nots “ renders social cohesion an impossibility, but worse, it is very destructive of the well being of the disadvantaged, from those wee babies currently swamping hospital emergency departments, to the parents whose quality of existence can be a grim and bruising sort of reality.
Politicians are members of the “haves”, and in my opinion they are completely and utterly clueless about the reality of life at the bottom, and nor do most care.
Some of the platforms they parade upon are self-indulgent and idiosyncratic, and more than ever we need the NGO’s, pressure groups etc to articulate it.
I checked out what you refered too. It is funny that white pakeha farmers get a mention but when the Maori in Northland protest about the same thing nothing is said. This dual message is typical of the Green approach.
Trevor S. Understatement, my friend. James S has identified the farmers he’s hating on as Southlanders, and said the reason he referred to them as ‘Pakeha’ is because he was speaking to a Maori radio station. What?
The ‘Pakeha’ concerned, a formal Southland farming group, say that their members include Maori and Indians, and that James Shaw is wrong referring to them as Pakeha.
Off the top of my head, I recall a lot of hardworking Hungarians down that way too, and James is being a bit bloody sloppy if he’s lumping them all together anyway just to cozy up to Maori listeners, but the current mantra is ‘divide and rule’, or James may simply be doing a Marama and assuming that if something unacceptable is going on, then the cause is white.
Not good enough from a govt minister.
Comments are closed.