Tribunal imposes sweeping restrictions to stop you talking

Open justice is a cornerstone of open democracy. So why has the Human Rights Review Tribunal imposed sweeping restrictions on a case of public interest, limiting your ability to discuss it?
 
This is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set, which is why I am writing to you today. We urgently need your support to ensure open justice prevails.
 
An ongoing case between Lesbian Action for Visibility in Aotearoa (LAVA) and the Wellington Pride Festival is being heard now before the Tribunal.
 
LAVA claims Wellington Pride unlawfully discriminated against them by cancelling their stall at the 2021 Out in the City fair because of their gender-critical views. Now, it's not our job to decide if they are right or not.
 
But it is our job to ensure you have the right to talk freely about this case, hear the details, and decide for yourself.

So, what happened? Members of the public in the viewing gallery made a social media post with details of the case during the hearing. This was then reshared and received various comments.
 
The Tribunal considered several of these comments to be disrespectful, offensive, and not fair or temperate, so they tightened the rules; they clearly decided they were the authority on civility...! Who made them the arbiters of acceptable speech? As you know, we don’t have laws against ‘disrespectful’ speech. 

They tightened the control of the hearing, banning notetaking in the public gallery by the general public, prohibiting phone use, and making an interim non-publication order stopping anyone except accredited media from publishing reports of the evidence until further notice. 
 
What next? This means no one from the general public can talk about anything that happens in this tribunal.  
 
This is not how open justice works.  
 
Do they not trust you to understand? We know trust in institutions is dwindling. Well, this is a perfect example of why. Secrecy fuels speculation and erodes confidence in the legal system. 
 
We couldn’t tell you more details about this case even if we wanted to; the non-publication order prohibits this. But believe me, the details we’re not allowed to tell you have implications for your speech rights, too.  
 
So, here’s where we come in: As prominent leaders in defending free speech, we filed to intervene in the proceedings to challenge the Tribunal’s interim non-publication order.   

But, this application was denied. So we’re doubling down and we will fight this decision because your speech rights are worth the fight. However, as you know, defending your speech rights isn’t cheap. But we need to take a stand now, before it is too late.  
 
We can't let tribunals pick and choose which voices can be heard. We have an opportunity to push back, but it cannot happen without your support.
 
Will you chip in, enabling us to ensure the sweeping suppressions of this case are dropped, and even more importantly, that they don’t become the norm? 
 
Every act of censorship sets a precedent for the next, and we’re not having it.  

Thank you once again for standing with us as principled defenders of this foundational human right.

Jillaine Heather | Chief Executive