'Hate' is subjective: whether speech or crime

Dear Minister Goldsmith, 

'Hate crime' laws suffer from the same unavoidable weakness as the 'hate speech' laws you have opposed: hate is a subjective term. Enabling the State to decide which crimes are 'hate crimes' and which are regular crimes invites a level of bias that is antithetical to the rule of law in New Zealand. 

Laws of this kind would be direct threats to Kiwis' freedoms of conscience and speech, and we call on you to reject any advice to implement them. 

'Hate' is an important term referencing a powerful emotion. Where individuals in our society are targets of hate, we must work to counter this hate and promote tolerance and inclusiveness. 

But 'hate' is an unavoidably subjective term; this is true whether it is used against word or action.

It is not the role of our criminal justice system or laws more generally to regulate this emotion. 

You have insisted that 'hate' speech laws would simply introduce a means to censor unpopular opinions. We applaud your decision to stop work on these proposals.  

'Hate' crime laws suffer from the same weaknesses and have no place in a liberal democracy that values freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the rule of law. 

Introducing 'hate' crime laws would see police and the judiciary tasked with deciding if one individual acted more criminally than another despite breaking the very same law, based on their motivations not their actions. 

We have no interest in defending criminal actions. If an individual breaks the law, they must be held accountable. But the law must apply impartially, regardless of who breaks it. Breaking the law for 'hate' shouldn't stand alone as a category any more than breaking the law for 'love'. Who is impartial enough to determine objectively when either of these would apply? 

Keep our laws impartial, the rule of law strong, and our speech and consciences free. 


We call on Hon. Paul Goldsmith, the Minister of Justice, to reject all advice to develop 'hate' crime legislation that would introduce unacceptable subjectivity into our laws, and be used to target unpopular perspectives and unorthodox beliefs. 

3,696 signature
Goal: 5000 signature

Will you sign?

Showing 2566 reactions

  • James Snowsill
    signed 2025-02-05 09:56:20 +1300
    If it is a crime then it is a crime, irrespective if it is driven by “hate”.
  • Graeme Townley
    signed 2025-02-05 09:56:03 +1300
  • Simon Hunt
    signed 2025-02-05 09:55:56 +1300
    I wholly endorse this letter to Minister Goldsmith. There are always various degrees of extenuating circumstances when considering penalties for breaking the law, but the presumed degree or absence of ‘hate’ (a subjective term at best) isn’t, & should never be, one of them.
  • Dorothy Rene Welsh
    signed 2025-02-05 09:55:52 +1300
  • Hugh Brosnahan
    signed 2025-02-05 09:55:48 +1300
  • Peter Bray
    signed 2025-02-05 09:55:32 +1300
  • Ali Mclauchlan
    signed 2025-02-05 09:55:18 +1300
  • Ian Simpson
    signed 2025-02-05 09:55:15 +1300
    Concerned this legislation will be implemented to suppress inconvenient opinions, as opposed to genuine “hate crimes”
  • Allan Stewart Baird
    signed 2025-02-05 09:54:43 +1300
  • George Sheweiry
    signed 2025-02-05 09:53:49 +1300
    It’s all about control
  • Lawrence Ford
    signed 2025-02-05 09:53:42 +1300
  • Stuart Avery
    signed 2025-02-05 09:53:38 +1300
  • Sheila Boyes
    signed 2025-02-05 09:53:11 +1300
  • Richard Bayly
    signed 2025-02-05 09:53:09 +1300
    The response to this letter will determine how I cast my vote in the next general election.
  • Susan Alves
    signed 2025-02-05 09:53:05 +1300
  • Raymond Richards
    signed 2025-02-05 09:52:52 +1300
    Hate speech laws are a step toward a return to blasphemy laws, which make it impossible to criticise superstition.
  • Peter Toms
    signed 2025-02-05 09:52:37 +1300
  • Ian Clark
    signed 2025-02-05 09:52:31 +1300
  • Rusha Paenga
    signed 2025-02-05 09:52:28 +1300
  • judith goldwater
    signed 2025-02-05 09:52:26 +1300
    This proposed Bill doesn’t reflect common sense in any way. It is foolish, subjective and open to enormous abuse of our human rights. For goodness sake, DO SOME RESEARCH ON THE ALREADY PROVEN UNFAIR OUTCOMES OF this SHORT SIGHTED LEGISLATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES and see THE ANGRY DIVISION IT IS INCURRING!
  • Kendall Clements
    signed 2025-02-05 09:52:21 +1300
  • Thelma & Haldane Rowan
    signed 2025-02-05 09:52:19 +1300
    It is such a ‘tricky’ issue. We all have our own ‘truth’. It will destroy free speech, the foundation to any democracy.
  • Frances Ferrabee
    signed 2025-02-05 09:52:05 +1300
  • Jillian Jeffrey
    signed 2025-02-05 09:51:50 +1300
    It is not the govts job to decide what isn’t or is a hate crime. Hate is very subjective and no one has the ability to decide what is or isn’t hate because we all have certain likes and dislikes so who would be qualified to choose. The govt needs to step away and let the law handle crime as they are qualified to do which is why we pass laws for all criminal activity.
  • Irene Scrivener
    signed 2025-02-05 09:51:39 +1300
    Disappointed but not entirely surprised by this latest twist on “hate speech”
  • Wendy Common
    signed 2025-02-05 09:51:38 +1300
  • Mark Hadwin
    signed 2025-02-05 09:51:34 +1300
    This is ridiculous – do what we voted you in for. These laws are dangerous & you should know better; for shame.
  • Mike Brownlee
    signed 2025-02-05 09:51:33 +1300
  • Richard Compton
    signed 2025-02-05 09:51:32 +1300
  • John Sim
    signed 2025-02-05 09:51:26 +1300

You might also like: