As advised in an email received earlier this morning from the Free Speech Union.
 I am very frustrated and sorry to have to contact you with bad news. Despite canning unworkable and incredibly unpopular ‘hate speech’ laws at the beginning of their term, the National Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, has instructed the Law Commission to prepare advice on creating ‘hate crime’ laws in New Zealand. Yesterday, they released the consultation document. It baffles me as to why this Government would pursue such a fool’s errand. You likely don’t need me to tell you, the inherent weakness of ‘hate speech’ laws is also found in ‘hate crime’ laws: it’s impossible to objectively decide what ‘hate’ means. Put simply, there is no logical reason to support ‘hate crime’ laws, but reject ‘hate speech’ laws. They both come from the same faulty assumption that the government can simply make ‘hate’ illegal. When Canada passed C-250, a ‘hate crime’ law in the mid-2000s, the bill’s sponsor MP Svend Robinson argued that it did not go far enough as it did not include ‘hate speech.’ Subsequent laws in Canada have fulfilled Robinson’s wish. Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia have each shown the folly of trying to address division in this way. Mark my words: if this Government accepts advice to create ‘hate crime’ laws, ‘hate speech’ laws will be passed within the next five years, and NZ Police will be mandated to suppress ‘wrong speech’. (Our opponents even explicitly say that is the goal).If ever there’s been a moment we need Kiwis to come along side us to stand up for free speech, it’s now. That is why I’m writing to ask if you will partner with us today? Together, tens of thousands of Kiwis pushed back against the Government trying to outlaw ‘hate’ previously. Up against a majority Government (the first in a generation), we defeated laws that would have been a death knell for free speech in New Zealand. And that’s exactly what we have to do again. My team has gone to battle stations, and we will give everything we’ve got between now and March 13 (when the consultation ends) to convince this Government it’s not a fight worth having. But to do that effectively, we need resources. Tomorrow my team will launch a website we’re working on right now to help facilitate tens of thousands of submissions on this consultation. We have already started fronting with media, and will be contacting every stakeholder we know to get them in the fight. Would you join us now and ensure that we have the ability to fight back: a $100 donation today (or even better, joining as a member), will mean we’re able to save free speech. If we don’t win this one, the implications for tomorrow are clear. Just look at what ‘hate crime’ laws have done in Canada, what non-criminal ‘hate’ incidents have done in the UK, and how the Government has regulated online speech in Australia. We have stood in their way to accomplish the same in New Zealand; let’s do it again. What actually makes a ‘hate crime’ different to other crimes? Being ‘tough on hate’ certainly makes us feel like we’re achieving something. Laws usually act to some degree as deterrents for criminal behaviour. But as I told Whena Owen from Q+A, ‘hate crime’ is unavoidably subjective. For instance, was the attack on a Treaty of Waitangi display at Te Papa Museum in 2023 a ‘hate crime’? When pro-Palestinian protestors threw red paint on an MP’s office, was that a ‘hate crime’? What about a car doing burnouts on the rainbow crossing on K-Road? If you feel inclined to brand one a ‘hate crime’ but not the other, this ought to be reason for caution. Without some broad agreement as a society on what we deem ‘hateful’, we’re treading on shaky ground. Who gets to call it? That’s why we’ve written a public letter to Minister Goldsmith, calling on him to reject advice to implement ‘hate e’ laws. Would you sign it now? In NZ law, intent – what someone seeks to do – and motive – why they do it – are already central factors in determining guilt and sentencing. Though not always easy to prove, these two factors can be reasonably demonstrated to a court. But, figuring out which crimes we call hateful is impossible in reality. Some acts may well seem obvious – fire bombing a synagogue or viciously assaulting a man because of his skin colour might easily fit the bill. But, beyond these sorts of cases, things get tricky. We can be against crime that is hateful, yet still against ‘hate crimes’ laws that will only give a big stick to those who want to beat, not just criminal activity, but wrong-thought. Aside from the obvious use of the word ‘hate’, which elicits a strong emotional response from the public, there is no evidence that ‘hate crime’ laws have reduced the sort of offences they were designed to address. Laws of this kind in the UK has been a prime example of this failure. In fact, evidence increasingly suggests that such laws have actually been counter-productive in combatting the kinds of extremism they were supposed to address. Building public pressure to tell the Minister ‘no’ was crucial in fighting ‘hate speech’ laws. Will you join us in telling Goldsmith to reject bad advice? <<Sign our public letter calling on Paul Goldsmith to reject advice to implement ‘hate crime’ laws>> Preserving an open society where thought and speech are free, and everyone is held accountable under the same rules – that is the best path to fighting hate. Thanks for your partnership. I’ll be in touch shortly with an easy way to submit to the Law Commission on this issue.   Jonathan Ayling Chief Executive Free Speech Union www.fsu.nz P.S. The Law Commission has announced their consultation on ‘hate crime’ laws the day after a man in the UK was arrested, and the week after another man was killed, for burning a Quran. As Andrew Doyle wrote yesterday, “I do not much like the destruction of books… The symbolism of a burning book [is] the repudiation of the very notion of freedom. And yet this same freedom means that we must be able to burn books if we so desire.”We don’t have to speculate what the implications are for overreach like ‘hate crime’ laws – we only have to look overseas. What I see there makes me certain we must do everything we can to ensure free speech is preserved in New Zealand. Would you please help us make sure this is possible? |
My understanding is that both ACT and NZFirst are against Hate Speech Legislation.
However, National (aka Labour Lite) will easily find support from Labour, The Greens and The Maori Party.
In conclusion I say it is beyond belief that National are again pursuing this course and it needs all of as to stand firm against it!!!
No Minister 
I’m really beginning to despise this government. Less because of policies – bad as some are, because they can probably be forced backwards on this and others – and more because of what it reveals about their “thinking”; the philosophy and ideology that leads to this.
The latter means that they’ll just return to a revised policy that tries to accomplish the same things in a manner they hope will escape notice.
I recall a number of Lefties laughing when the Key government introduced the “bright line test” for assessing when capital gains could be treated as income and taxed. IIRC it was something like two years (??) so National claimed it wouldn’t really hurt most people just buying and selling house as their lifestyle changed.
But the Lefties pointed out that once it was law it would be easy to just change the time frame, which is exactly what they did. As I understand it the Luxon government has changed it back, but unless it’s scrapped the next Labour government will just reverse that and keep at it until it’s permanent.
Same thing here.
There is a very significant difference between disagreement and hate that we are not supposed to know.
I think it was Voltaire who said “As much as I might despise what you say, I will defend your right to say it even with my own life”
Reality check for the deluded victims of the woke Neo-Marists propaganda.
We do not have to like, approve of or agree with everyone else and should not be forced to pretend to.
Hurting someone’s precious little feelings is not an assault on or crime against “little darlings” that need to learn to harden up and get over it.
There are other people that disagree with and don’t like us very much.
There are other people that we disagree with and don’t like very much.
Stop whining, learn to live with that reality and grow up!
Physical violence, threats of physical violence and promotion or incitement of physical violence are justifiable crimes we should not commit.
The consequences of physical crimes are visible and able to be confirmed by objective evidence.
There is no way objective evidence to confirm or deny that what someone said or did actually harmed someone else “emotionally”.
If what you did or said “offended me” that is my problem to deal and vice versa because there is no objective evidence that you or I were harmed.
This legislation of “hate speech” is based on a delusion that feeling offended is the same as being physically injured and saying that someone “feels injured” is objective evidence of actual injury.
This is totally irrational because there is no objective evidence that any actual injury has occurred.
What asked what “hate speech” is, Ms Ardern could not define it but said SHE would recognize it when SHE “saw” it. That was someone with delusions of grandeur stating the everyone else should be ruled by her and not allowed to say or do anything she did not permit them to.
Authorizing the employees of our police enterprise, who cannot protect us from real physical crimes, to protect our feelings from “being hurt” is as foolish as it is dangerous.
All this does is enable the Omnipotent Moral Busybodies, that hate people who disagree with them, to get there own way by pretending to have been injured.
This establishment of the “thought police” is evidence of the Orwellian dystopia that is occurring in our western societies and the Neo-Marists use their political activism and influence to force the rest of the people to submit to their authority.
For some reason, the minority of influential people in the Labour, Green and National (“labour lite”) political parties have accepted the woke delusions and are wanting to impose them on everyone else for some potential personal benefit.
The only likely benefit is the increase in the political authority, power and control these Oligarchs will gain by violating and taking the remaining NATURAL RIGHTS away from the “common people” they feel so superior to.
Natural Law and Natural Rights were radical ideas of the wise people of the Age of Enlightenment. They were also the basis for Liberal Democracy and most of the beneficial achievements of Western Civilization.
Every individual is entitled to the same, equal Natural Rights to Life, Personal Property, Ownership of their own bodies and Freedom (to think, say and do what they like) as long as they do not MATERIALLY infringe or violate the same Natural Rights of others.
The primary function of people in government and the laws they impose on us is to protect the equal Natural Rights of the citizens.
Unfortunately and to our detriment, the majority of citizens have forgotten and stopped valuing their Natural Rights and have enabled and allowed politicians and bureaucrats to ignore and violate them (“for the common good” as they pretend).
The “covid experience” and many other examples of excessive political authority and power should have educated everyone to understand that what they regard as “rights” are just temporary privileges that government “authorities” can deny us whenever they decide to.
Orwell’s predictions of what society would be like in 1984 are being realized a bit later than he thought.
Big Brother is the minority of influential members and funders of the main political parties who have become Oligarchs that govern the “common people” by and for their own benefit and insatiable ambition for totalitarian authority and power.
The rest of the people are naive fools that prefer to deny what is being done to them and rebel against it.
““It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.” – Stephen Fry
I’m not sure that he still believes this. I hope so, because no one can put something quite as eloquently as he can.