By Nick Hanne | Free Speech Union

It may seem daft to ask, but how can ‘law enforcement’ be responsible for enforcing laws which don’t exist?

Believe it or not, we’ve found ourselves asking that very startling question at the Free Speech Union ever since our team received evidence from a concerned cop about a new compulsory ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ training module which has just been rolled out nationwide to members of the NZ Police.

If you’re not familiar with this news, officers are provided with examples of ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’. Examples of hate speech include statements such as ‘There are only two genders’ and ‘Kiwi, not Iwi’. While the first example needs no context, the latter happens to be the exact wording of a National Party campaign slogan from 2005. That, if you’ve ever supported National, should have you worried about the issue of political censorship. Perhaps most absurdly though is the inclusion on the anti-hate hit-list of the apparently villainous slogan ‘Free Speech’.

Yes, you read that right.

Yet not long after the initial revelation about the training programme broke, we received news that the problem goes much deeper. A further source inside NZ Police, this time an officer of more senior rank and well-placed to comment, informed FSU that non-criminal incidents  – speech or behaviour long protected under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 – are being recorded on the NZ Police national database. Along with completing the new training regime NZ Police officers are required to ‘Recognise, Record and Respond’ when faced with such instances of ‘hate’.

Reporting a hate incident is easy. And the criterion is almost entirely subjective. An incident must be “anything the complainant feels is hateful towards them as a member of a minority group.” No clear definition of ‘hate’ is provided and the word ‘minority’ is not delineated either.

I don’t think I need to tell you just how dangerous this move is proving to be for civil liberties in NZ. FSU has fielded grave concerns from a growing number of current and former cops who are troubled by these new official directives. This is not what they signed up for.

Sceptics, reasonably enough, were quick to challenge the initial claims put out by FSU. Was there tangible evidence for what was being alleged? There were screenshots of training material. Multiple police officers testified to the existence of the programme and the database recording directive. But could politicians and the public consider this evidence substantive enough?

All that was left at this point was to ask the top brass. FSU Chief Executive Jonathan Ayling and FSU Senior In-House Legal Counsel Hannah Clow met with Police Commissioner Andrew Coster and his advisers this past Wednesday. Coster confirmed the training and reporting are taking place. Curiously though, he spent considerable time in the meeting expressing concern at FSU’s highly vocal approach to the issue, suggesting that because we openly broadcast our concerns about extra-judicial Police policy, such visibility would only further undermine public confidence in national institutions. Yes, Commissioner. On that point we largely agree. Exposing the alarming behaviour of national institutions leads to reputational damage and diminished trust. Most Kiwis want to find reasons to support the important work of law enforcement. But to criticise us at FSU for speaking out in seeking to hold the NZ Police leadership to account is – pardon the expression – akin to shooting the messenger.

Commissioner Coster has said he will review some of the training material. But little else is being conceded at this point. The official stance is that NZ Police are only following the recommendations of the Royal Inquiry into the Christchurch massacre. This is putting the cart before the horse because not only are the recommendations non-binding, but the attendant hate speech laws which would have required enforcing were eventually abandoned by the last government.

Politicians still aren’t weighing in. Those in a position to do something about the problem we’ve identified with NZ Police continue to do themselves no favours. Sadly, it is precisely that kind of inaction from elected leaders which is enabling woke managerialism to erode freedom of expression.

Will the revelation about NZ Police help turn back the culture-driven censorship tide? Unlikely. But it will steel the resolve of free speech proponents in this country. It also makes it more difficult for public officials to plead ignorance to the widespread tendency evident in the state toward curtailing speech rights and open discourse. They would be wise to remember that free speech support is only growing in proportion to the increased level of exposure of these censorial measures. Cases like this one arise in diverse domains of government and civil society.

Repressive measures to curb freedom of expression in this country may or may not be coordinated at times. There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy behind every door. Certain bad ideas are sometimes just contagious or appear innocuous to the uninitiated. They’re also often linguistically bamboozling to decipher. It can take time to come to grips with the specific implications of bureaucratic parlance. A lot of harmful ideas get dressed up in saccharine terms. In the case of the NZ Police and its new hate speech detection training, it appears that some degree of collaboration - or at least acquiescence - amongst its leadership can be attributed to activist players who in pursuing an ideological agenda are prepared to run roughshod over established cultural norms and Parliament’s sovereign authority. What is so telling in the case of the NZ Police is that they have implemented it surreptitiously.

Clearly, they know their actions will not be popular with a public who only grants them authority through social license. We must assert to the NZ Police that they have no choice but to abide by the very laws they are sworn to enforce, not those unwritten ‘laws’ they deign to invent.