The Prime Minister during the launch of the SIS woke nark project today has made it very clear that she supports Minister Allan’s political kamikaze drive to not only push through Hate Speech Laws, but she also wants specific Hate Speech laws to protect religion???
“We may not have everyone but I would like to see general support,” she said.
“There should be good support for saying, actually, we should not experience hate speech and incitement based on your religion.
“Where there were issues last time this was because there were other amendments around some of the thresholds and language that caused some concern.”
RELIGION!
Here is the baseline proposal for what would be considered religious hate speech using what was put up previously by the Government…
‘the incitement of disharmony against religion, based on an intent to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred, through threatening, abusive or insulting communications’.
…Comrades – if NZ passes religious hate speech laws, I’m afraid I will have no choice but to immediately break that law for the sake of our Democracy!
Remember, this new religious hate speech law will specifically target ‘hate’ towards religious beliefs???
But many religious beliefs are ridiculous. Under this law, ‘The Life of Brian’ would be considered hate speech…
From the archive, 30 August 1979: Nothing funny about Life of Brian’s Jesus joke
The Catholic archdiocese has called Life of Brian a “blasphemy”, adding that it was a “crime against religion which holds the person of Christ up to comic ridicule.”
The Jewish groups are equally damning. They regard the film as “grieviously insultlng,” and have described it as “a vicious attack on Judaism and the Bible, and a cruel mockery of Christian religious feelings as well.”
…I philosophically hate religion for many, many, many fucking good reasons, but because NZ is a liberal progressive democracy, I tolerate religion.
I tolerate Scientology, I tolerate the Exclusive Brethren & I tolerate those who believe in a magical invisible flying wizard for all their personal choices!
I also tolerate that they don’t pay tax – BUT I SURE AS FUCK refuse point blank to fear them!
This is a liberal progressive SECULAR Democracy, if you want to believe in crazy myths and crazy invisible magical flying beings, that is your total right to, but equally, it’s my right to mock those beliefs when they collide with my individual rights.
Blasphemy laws and gender identity hate speech isn’t a solution to a cascade intelligence failure by the entire NZ Intelligence agencies that led to a white supremacists terror attack.
We lose free speech to criticise religion? How the hell is that anything other than a victory for the Christchurch Terrorist?
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.
I personally find it appalling that me ridiculing Christians and Jews could be criminal.
However any ridicule of Islam must be met with condemnation and a heavy jail sentence if not the death penalty.
No right thinking woke ideology could think otherwise.
I’m concerned about the current criticism of Iran, this is nothing but hatred towards islamic belief and cannot be tolerated.
Boris, you’ll still be able to ridicule Christians and Jews. But I can guarantee you won’t be able to mock Islam.
Mart, if this legislation goes through you may need to get another career as the TDB will ultimately be so sanitised that no-one will bother. In fact, now that you have moved into more politically centre territory, you will get it from both sides as you will never be in accord with either main party.
But hang on, I have to go and take my meds before I get too hysterical about this dystopian new world I see coming to pass.
Bomber, you do have the right NOT to vote for Jacinda or her enablers, the Greens.
I wonder how the law will identify religion or a religion; and if the difference between “ridicule” and “hate” will be specified.
That’s what I’m wondering. As a lifelong atheist with friends and former colleagues who ascribe to various religious beliefs, I wonder if we can make a distinction between disbelief, gentle mockery, and hate, along a continuum. We must also reserve the right to call out fundamentalist cults such as the Taliban, Brian Tamaki, and Gloriavale.
I want to know what happens when one’s religious beliefs are used to criticise the beliefs of another religion?
The State will come down on the side of the ones they dont like. Unless there is an ombudsman for such things, in which case, they’d spend millions looking into it and 18 months to then recommend the State pull it’s horns in.
This is what is so stupid about identity politics. The Jews, the Muslims and the Christians all have the same aversions to homosexuality because they all derive from original texts shared between all 3 religions.
But in this country, only one of those 3 religions will be slapped for publicising their views on it. So its not about religion or even the particularly, the view within the religion. It is the identity that will get you targeted.
Still want to vote Labour + The Greens + Maori Party into power so we can have WEF-inspired fascism?
Remember it is the likes of Kate Hannah and Siousxie Willes that will be determining the criminology threshold.
Buckle up folks because it appears Te Reo doesn’t give 2 fucks but sure as hell both Seymour and Peters will on the campaign trail.
Is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster included? This law will put me right off meatballs and noodles and hurt my feelings. What of Satanists and Jedi, hate speech laws could be hateful.
Liberal ideas buffer conflict and build a tolerant society, illiberal ideas not so.
If one is looking to prevent “incitement of disharmony” one would be hard pressed for a more oxymoronic approach than this. Woke politics is fighting against the society it is ushering in.
It would also be a civic duty to find every trivial act that is criminalised by this law especially if ‘committed’ by an MP who votes in favour of this. 2022 woke-Labour = 1970s religious conservatives proving the horseshoe theory of politics.
I agree with you, Martyn. I do believe that you should be able, and should always be able, to retain your freedom of speech and of self-expression which includes light mockery of other people’s beliefs of you so choose, providing that this behaviour doesn’t infringe on the rights of these people.
Nice article. Well done.
O Unbelievers, O Infidels. There is only one religion she wants protected.
So is saying I simply do not believe that there is an all powerful being that listens to you, expects your devotion, and then spends your time on this earth testing your belief by allowing despicable treatment of loads of people on the planet just to mess with your conviction (all of which by the way has been told by the writings of mere mortals not actual evidence) hate speech? If so why?
Because to protect the religion of peace from critique she has to (reluctantly) protect all religions
How does LOB stir up hatred though? Surely ridicule, not hatred.
Hang on. what the fuck is “insulting communications”?
billid “ Insulting communications “ Letters from my mother-law ? Recycled Christmas cards? Kiddies in backpacks peeing on daddy ? Rates bills ? Putting buttons in the church collection ? Almost everything from WINZ ?
That is!
“you’ll know it when you see it”.
J. A.
Great leader, thinker, and highly experienced manager of huge and complex organisations.
It doesn’t really matter how loosely that is defined though does it? It still has to cause ‘hatred’. If I say “all Christians are ugly”, does that stir up ‘hatred’? No NZ court would convict someone on that basis.
that insult really hurt my feelings. Why are you being so hateful and stirring up hate? I’m taking you to the hate speech tribunal where you will lose your job and be ostracized by society – lol – that’ll be doing me a favour.
If a religious group stirs up “hate” against an atheist or a believer in another fairy tale will that qualify?
With rugby being New Zealand’s long established religion, it’s pretty clear that the PM doesn’t want anyone being mean to the All Blacks. Helen had a thing about the All Blacks too, and John Key used to hang around their dressing room hoping someone would take a photo of him with them.
Key’s obsession with hanging about in a room with naked young men seemed a little deviant.
Though in fairness, Key thought HE was God.
“I tolerate Scientology, I tolerate the Exclusive Brethren & I tolerate those who believe in a magical invisible flying wizard for all their personal choices!”
I’ve even been known to vote for recovering Morons and lapsed Mikky Doolans but if I wanted to have a polity based on religion, I’d move to the Muddle East
‘the incitement of disharmony against humanity, based on an intent to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred, through threatening, abusive or insulting communications’.
Based on the humans (whatever race, sex, gender ID, political creed, marital status, employment status) opinion about anything, sacred or profane.
Where do people get off claiming that “their God” is “our God” and loves them, but not the rest of humanity.
Will the bible and koran get exemptions for the outright hatred and the calls for violence towards certain groups that each contains?
I’m very curious to see what sort of contortions of logic are going to be used to get around this.
it is a sin to NOT use your god given brain when blindly following any religion. All religions are man made, and most religions create divisions and hatred for others. Religions should be respectfully critiqued to ensure it has strong, logical philosophy to back itself.
My first point of order following the implementation of hurt speech policy is to say politicians are second class citizens.
Animal god,hammers and nails now,.
Comments are closed.