Both what they mean and what they might achieve is unclear.
According to some views, they are a gross threat to freedom and democracy and “cancel culture on steroids”. Others argue they will be ineffectual, even a step back from current provisions in the Human Rights Act 1993.
Certainly, the Government seems confused. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Kris Faafoi have expressed conflicting views.
Two leading political journalists went as far as to excoriate Ms Ardern for her downright wrong comments on the matter.
Newshub’s political editor Tova O’Brien said: “Not only is the Prime Minister wrong about the basic facts of the proposal, she was wrong to shut down debate on hate speech on The AM Show this morning with her glib, inaccurate dismissals.
“The Prime Minister and ministers develop policy and set policy directions for law. If they don’t understand the policy direction and intent of the law, how can they expect the judiciary to interpret and apply the law?”
The matter is far too important for soft soaping and vague reassurances.
Fundamental freedoms are at stake, and these cannot be left just to good intentions.
The “discussion document” is called “Proposal against incitement of hatred and discrimination”. It says the Government in principle has agreed with what is outlined.
Submissions close as soon as August 6, not long for something of this magnitude.
Clearly, free speech never has nor should be boundless. There are already various legal restrictions — censorship, laws prohibiting disorderly and offensive conduct language, and digital communications legislation. The question is always on where lines are drawn.
Instincts from the left and the right, from progressives or conservatives, should be to preserve rights and limit Government control in such areas.
This is especially serious when such matters are put into the Crimes Act and penalties include imprisonment.
It is fine when your view of the world is dominant in public discourse.
But the wheels of history turn. What is deemed to “incite hatred or discrimination” changes in different eras and places.
What, anyway, does “hatred” mean?
And what will be the result? Bigoted and horrible speech and thought will continue to flourish among those so inclined.
Political commentator Chris Trotter believes people learn to speak around official sanctions through “dog whistles”, in effect coded ways of expressing similar sentiments.
As it is, many mainstream New Zealanders feel they cannot communicate — even respectfully — on difficult issues if they run counter to today’s “correct” thinking.
The proposals are not designed to cover insults aimed at individuals.
The vile, nasty and yes hate-ridden comments thrown at people in the street who look different from the majority are not included.
The expansion of hate speech to religious groups, among other sectors in society, raises questions.
Would cartoons of Muhammed be hate speech? What about the status of Israel Folau’s homophobic tweets, as well as the legality of responses to his religious ilk? Are we returning to outlawing blasphemy?
The proposals are being justified because the Government said it would accept all the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Christchurch mosque killings.
But, as is acknowledged by the commission itself, any such new laws would not have prevented the tragedy. The commission could also hardly be an expert in free and hate speech.
The proposal cites “human rights international obligations”. We must decide what is appropriate for us rather than follow what might be impractical lofty goals.
The Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have walked into a minefield. They need to find a way to tiptoe out.
They need to retreat from proposals that are confusing and counterproductive.
Related Stories
Comments
Isn't it interesting that it is the woke, lefty, progressives that want to limit people's' ability to clarify thinking via restricting speech and it's the so call right, conservatives that want to allow the dialog that explores current thought.
The left say they want to protect SOME people's' feelings by avoiding speech and the right want people to speak back.
Looks to me that narcism and totalitarianism are on the rise worldwide and its the left driving it with their claim that they want everyone to be nice, tolerant, diverse, inclusive and equal in their eyes.
It all sounds good however to get there they are willing to be anything but nice to those they disagree with, intolerant of different views, diverse on anything but thought, inclusive of everyone but the dominant culture and equally controlling to each and everyone of us.
This might be tolerable if the weakest in our society actually got stronger but as each year passes the opposite is true.
A couple of interesting polls this week. The Roy Morgan poll showed a big drop in support for Labour whereas the UMR poll showed David Seymour doing well. Seymour has been putting in the hard yards on hate speech with meetings around the country and it seems to be paying off. Andrew Little put a lot of work into the hate speech proposals over the last couple of years and seems crazy that the guy who drove it isn't fronting it.
Excellent points. It isnt just the weakest in society getting softer, it is over entire cohorts (think St Hildas stops school cert exams as it is making them sad and anxious- which is simply feeble).
The left were the champions of free speech, but now they are only the champions of free speech when the narrative aligns with their own. Any counter arguement (no matter how logical or considered) makes the lefties sad and diving for a cuddle with their support-dog or the prozac. The left have a lot to answer for in this world. For New Zealand it started with Helen Clarks Kiwisport where everyone was a winner; even the losers. Then come the indoctrination at school and suddenly we are a country of wowsers.
Kiwis live in a nanny state. With all the problems new Zealand faces the politicians are focused on hate speech? Having lived here for a little over 10 years I have to admit kiwis are by far the most racist people I've ever encountered. That said, I don't want the government getting into the business of regulating speech. The government needs to focus on the big problems affecting the people living here. Focusing on regulating people's speech is a distraction. Words are just words no matter how vile they are. Limiting people's ability to freely express themselves can only lead to physical violence. Stifleing some people will only make things worse for others.
The left has no desire for free speech. They want to be the ones who decide what is truth.
We are not free if we cannot provide our views, whether “correct” or not.
If the left said they alone could decide truth, anybody the left deems not telling their truth they would slander them, try to intimidate them, try to get them to lose their jobs, assault them and their homes, and other behaviors but once they are called out they cannot take it and call foul.
Wow! What is happening with the ODT's editorial panel? For this organisation to seriously present this piece of trash as an editorial is appalling. It presents the criticisms of a range of opposition politicians, irrelevant public commentators and journalist hacks as evidence of the proposals being confusing and counterproductive. It is a shameful piece of editorial journalism.
Just on the Royal Commission of Enquiry, you say they can hardly be expert on free and hate speech. Yet you have not explained that the Commission was made up of one of NZ's most respected High Court and Appeals Court Judges and one of our most experienced diplomats who is also qualified in law. The commission was also served by a team of lawyers and recieved evidence from dozens of people and agencies, including those from other countries with experience in this topic, who are expert in free and hate speech. In fact the body of information that the Commission gathered would be the most complete collection of information on free and hate speech ever compiled in this country
Also this is just a proposal, it is intended to gather feedback. that is its point. Suggesting it needs to be shut down is ridiculous
Don't know if it's a panel. Editorial is masthead for Opinion. Could just be an erudite Bloke from the Bush.
Most reputable news agencies operate an editorial panel, mainly the editor and a couple of hand picked experienced senior staff and maybe the Company lawyer, who operate as proof reading, fact checking group, making sure opinions expressed and endorsed fit with company policy etc.
If it is just an opinion piece from an erudite bloke from the bush that is usually stated, this one simply states editorial opinion so I'm assuming it's from the ODT editor..
IRD. No editorial carries a byline. Is editorializing always by the editor, or deputy?
A newsroom of long ago had an Editor of The Day. Curiously, "The Day" was never published.
David Farrar did some analysis on newspapers sales the other day. The ODT has maintained its readership while other national mastheads are collapsing. I think this is because it takes reasonable positions on many policy areas.
Racism in Christchurch would be dealt with effectively.
'Conservative' does not mean Right Wing.
Really, with whose jackboot?
It is fairly easy to direct the thinking of any commission. Just appoint the people you want and direct what they are expected to do. The commission can make whatever recommendations it wants but it does not mean anyone has to agree with them. I rarely agree with Chris Trotter but he is spot on with this. We already have sufficient safeguards, this legislation is designed to stop criticism of the govts pet projects. This out of control govt is pushing lots of issues for which they have no mandate and know are not popular. How best to push these through? Control speech. Very dangerous approach usually used by the far left and dictators.
How can proposals, put out to the public for consultation, dealing specifically with expansion of hate speech laws be "legislation is designed to stop criticism of the Govt pet projects". It's a proposal. It's not legislation. It's not even a Bill.
The Govt doesn't have a mandate? remind yourself how the last election went, part of the Govts campaign was giving effect to the changes recommended by the Royal Commission. The Govt has the biggest mandate on this issue that nay Govt ever has had in the history of this country.
You've been spending too much time listening to David Seymour's conspiracy theories and/or taking the blurb put out be National Party Head Office far to literally.
These goons seek to enslave us. Hate speech is an old trick. If you commit a hate thought you get a “tenner”. Ten years in the gulag. These mouths bring a new terror to our land.
According to you're own claims in your comment you could be sent to the gulag for saying what you have said. It would fit your definition of hate speech.
Unfortunately, you are wrong. Even if the proposals in the Govt paper are made into law without any changes you will still be allowed to make your comments without fear of retribution.
To be hate speech you would have to add a call to arms against the people making the proposal, you would have to encourage the public to commit violence against them, to kill them, to injure them. If you did that then you would be sent to the gulag and quite rightly so.
But just standing on your soapbox and spouting insults and lies will continue to be permissible.