Safer online services and media platforms proposal will silence women – Women’s Rights Party
The Women’s Rights Party says the Government’s proposal for “Safer Online Services and Media Platforms” will silence dissenting voices, and censor conversations about topics that urgently need discussion.
In its submission to the “Safer Online Services and Media Platform” consultation document, due to today [Monday, 31 July], the Women’s Rights Party says the current climate in Aotearoa NZ “appears to support people claiming some sort of moral superiority who seem to be promoting their own belief systems whether they are political, religious, or philosophical.
“Malicious or unjustified complaints are likely to be made by people who want to silence those with a different viewpoint. A democratic society should not support this censorship.”
Women’s Rights Party Leader Jill Ovens says the issue of who finds what content offensive or hurtful is open to wide interpretation.
“Defining physical harm is of course uncomplicated, but ‘social, emotional and mental wellbeing’ is impossible to define accurately or carefully enough to regulate without impinging on free speech rights,” Ms Ovens says.
“Disagreeing with someone in an online conversation is being described as harmful or unsafe and has led to employment issues and the shutting down of debate as we saw in the aftermath of the Albert Park violence of 25 March.”
Ms Ovens says the mainstream media has ignored the voices of women, while at the same time promoting and grossly overinflating the unjustified fears of “harm” which have been uncritically echoed by some politicians, and trans rights activists.
“Freedom of expression and a free press are critically important,” Ms Ovens, a former AUT journalism senior lecturer, says. “Unfortunately, it has been our experience that the rights to freedom of expression have not been enjoyed by the women of New Zealand who have been trying to stand up for their sex-based human rights, and to safeguard our children.”
The Women’s Rights Party is not reassured by the proposed changes in the consultation document. For example, the proposed Regulator would be an unelected body that would not be accountable to the public.
The definition of hate or harmful speech is not objective, but entirely subjective, which makes monitoring or regulation impossible.
Further, codes of practice should be drafted in Parliament and follow the usual process of public consultation.
“While the proposed Codes of Practice would have processes for platforms to remove content, and reduce the distribution of unsafe content, it should be noted that we already have laws to protect New Zealanders against abuse and threats.“
The Women’s Rights Party is calling on the Government to actively defend democratic values, and to support and protect open discussion.
The shocking spectacle of the Human Rights Commissioner turning up in Wellington to demonstrate against women having voices should serve as a much needed reminder of what a repressive and sinister piece of legislation this is from a government bent on infantilising the electorate and destroying democracy.
It is a disgrace the way women are silenced and virtually removed as an entity by the Greens and Labour MPs with the collusion of the NZ media. National better do better. If you asked Labour what the general status of NZ women is at the moment wellness wide (to use their word) they could not tell us. All we see are stories of violence against women, lack of maternity units, untreated female disease eg endometriosis.Women attacked in public for gathering together and called anti trans not what we are pro our sex’s rights. Women called pregnant people.. Women are still subject to sexual harm. Yet this govt in its wisdom removed women’s safe services and facilities. It is utter discrimination against the female sex and National better do better and expect to be called on it if back in govt.
Delia. “ With the collusion” of the media”, 100%. They rely on government funding and need to sell their product and keep jobs which no longer require any integrity, but the betrayal of women by the Labour and Green politicians should see them voted out of jobs; Green’s have publicly spearheaded too much divisiveness.
National’s Michael Woodhouse producing a toilet seat emblazoned with a Labour woman politician’s face should have seen him censured by his party, which also remained silent when John Key with his pathetic hair fetish serially tormented a poor young waitress. The Albert Park anti-women terrorism was stoked beforehand by both politicians and media, but the fact that Kiwi women had to import someone from overseas to help them to find their voices, beggars belief. On the day, the anti- women bloc won.
As you note, bullied women got branded anti-transgender, by transgenderist bullies who hijacked the event to portray themselves as the victims of the victimised. There was quite an imbalance of power there, and the highly subjective nature of these anti -free speech scenarios wouldn’t stand in a court of law and do nothing to protect women or stop little girls from being too scared to go to the loo. Luxon and the Nats have yet to present themselves as knights in shining armour, and males ranting against Posie Parker probably have personal issues I would blush having to expand upon – as would your Grandmama with her beautiful name.
Great post. Shocking how misogynist, ideological and fearful of debate the NZ government and ministry have become.