Free Speech Union: Condemn Tamaki's remarks and defend free speech principles

22nd June 2026

The Free Speech Union rejects comments made by Brian Tamaki calling for New Zealand to be "purged" of Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims, and suggesting retaliatory attacks on mosques and temples.

"These remarks are divisive and inflammatory and run contrary to the principles of a free and pluralistic society," says Free Speech Union CEO Jillaine Heather.

"One of the core principles of a liberal democracy is that people are judged by their own actions, not by their ethnicity, religion, or association with events occurring elsewhere in the world. New Zealanders should reject attempts to import overseas conflicts into our domestic civic life."

However, the Free Speech Union cautions against responding to offensive speech by demanding greater censorship powers.

"The true test of a commitment to free speech is not whether we defend speech we agree with, but whether we defend the right of people to express views we find offensive, disturbing, or even abhorrent. The primary response to bad speech should be criticism, rebuttal, and public condemnation, not an appeal to state power."

The Free Speech Union notes that New Zealand law already provides remedies where speech crosses the line into criminal conduct.

"Free speech is not absolute in New Zealand. If comments amount to incitement, threats, or encouragement of criminal offending, existing criminal law may become relevant. The question is whether the legal threshold has been met, not whether the views expressed are unpopular or offensive."

The Free Speech Union points to the High Court's decision in Wall v Fairfax Media Publications Ltd as an important reminder that New Zealand law protects even speech that is deeply offensive, shocking, or disturbing. Courts have repeatedly recognised that freedom of expression exists precisely because unpopular and controversial views will often provoke anger and outrage.

"The legal standard in a free society is necessarily high. We should be extremely cautious about treating every outrageous statement as a matter for state intervention. Once governments acquire powers to punish speech on the basis of its offensiveness, those powers rarely remain confined to the people we dislike."

"The appropriate response to remarks such as these is to reject them publicly and unequivocally, while remaining committed to the principle that freedom of expression protects the right to speak, not freedom from criticism for what is said."

ENDS