'Hate' crimes back on the agenda

I am very frustrated with an announcement today.

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. Today, they have 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).

That is why I need your help.

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, which non-criminal 'hate' incidents have done in the UK, 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 crime' 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


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 of 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? 

Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Nadia Braddon-Parsons
    published this page in Blog 2025-02-04 17:33:27 +1300

You might also like: