Pages tagged "Gangs"
-
Looks can be deceiving
Hate speech laws can sound noble at first. Who doesn't want to combat hatred?
But looks can be deceiving.
You'll know by now why we strongly (not to mention successfully) opposed the hate speech laws. We'll say it again and again: Bad ideas are beaten by good ideas.
Censorship drives toxic ideas underground to fester, meaning they can crop up in unexpected and far more dramatic ways.
I'd rather know when a 'hateful' message exists. As the member of a minority group myself, how can I combat hatred against my community if it is spoken in whispers behind closed doors?
Suppressing bad ideas doesn’t make them go away. As American journalist and author Jonathan Rauch says, the problem with hate speech is the hate, not the speech.
This is why I don't see the Government's legislation to ban gang patches any differently from the hate speech laws that were proposed in June 2021.
Many of you have raised your concerns when we've spoken about this issue so far:
"How can you defend gangs?"
"But patches are for intimidation!"
"They don't deserve the same rights as us."Remember, standing up for someone else's freedom of speech and expression does not mean you have to agree with them or like them. It doesn't mean your moral compass is slipping either. You're standing up for someone else's rights today so that yours will be defended tomorrow.
We must insist that the Government doesn't set a dangerous precedent. And if you think these new laws won’t suffer mission creep you wait until you get to the end of this email!
A problem with censorship
Yes, most people find gangs detestable. This topic triggers strong feelings for many. But we need to take a step back.
Where will the Government draw the line next?
What happens when other symbols, slogans and phrases that are unpopular become banned?
If we don't like something, we have to find another way to oppose it than banning it, because such laws will quickly be used against us.
Free speech for all or not at all
If the Government is okay with this breach of rights, then what's next?
We should all be concerned when the Government is prepared to suppress the expression of a particular group of people, because when will it be our turn?
We need to crack down on the criminal activity of gangs and enforce the laws already in place. Stopping gangs from telling us who they are doesn't actually help us address what they do.
The Bill of Rights should not be breached as a solution to fix criminal activity. The Free Speech Union (then Coalition) was formed expressly to defend our Bill of Rights. We have a duty to defend it as does every supporter of free speech.
We've written a submission to the Justice Select Committee on the Government's legislation.
Our submission
We've recommended some constructive amendments to the legislation that we can all agree on without breaching the Bill of Rights. We've recommended that a sunset clause is added so that in six years, the Government and the public can review if this legislation has turned into a slippery slope or not.
We've also recommended that the definition of 'gang' is tightened and that the Attorney-General must sign off on any further additions to the 'gang list'.
Below is a tweet from Labour opposition MP Shanan Halbert.
We all have an opinion on Destiny Church, and at the Free Speech Union, we do not support law-breaking actions such as some of the vandalism we have seen. But should they be treated like a gang? Could this law end up including them? And if Destiny, why not other churches, or certain disruptive environmental groups?Censorship is a hungry beast. It is never content. Whenever a society opens the door to any censorship, it does so at our peril.
Still think we're just being dramatic? Or do you think these laws are tight enough to be beyond the risk of a slippery slope?
Attorney-General Judith Collins is a fan of being strict on gangs, and even she says that these laws are an unjust breach of human rights.
The Government would be advised to listen to her.
Dane Giraud
Council Member
Free Speech UnionPS. The Government's new legislation banning gang patches is a risk for us all. Read our submission to the Justice Select Committee here.
-
Gang patch ban further erosion of Kiwis’ speech rights: FSU submits to Justice Select Committee
MEDIA RELEASE
3 April, 2024
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEGang patch ban further erosion of Kiwis’ speech rights: FSU submits to Justice Select Committee
The Government’s Bill to ‘crack down on gangs’ is an unjustified breach of the Bill of Rights according to the Attorney-General. She’s right. Banning gang patches and insignia may be a politically popular decision in some communities, but is a troubling precedent further eroding Kiwis’ freedom of expression, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
“We have submitted to the Justice Select Committee highlighting four significant areas in this legislation that must be reconsidered. You do not need to support the illegal activity of gangs to see the dangerous flaws in this legislation.
“We don’t get to pick and choose whose rights are protected under the Bill of Rights. It has to apply to all Kiwis, or we may quickly find our own rights being removed.
“We also propose five amendments to the legislation to address the pitfalls in the current design. These include requiring the Attorney-General to consent to the addition of groups defined as ‘gangs’ under the legislation, and introducing a sunset clause giving the Government and public the opportunity to review the legislation.
“This legislation is too broad, appeals to emotion rather than evidence, and does not consider the wider implications on our nation.
“Playing politics with fundamental rights is a risky game in which we all lose. Where any community is committing illegal activities, they must face the consequences. But criminalising expression is a slippery slope.”
ENDS
Read the submission here.
-
Proposed ban of gang patches sets a dangerous precedent
MEDIA RELEASE
07 March 2024
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEProposed ban of gang patches sets a dangerous precedent
The Government has finally released legislation that will prohibit gangs from wearing patches in public. While this policy seeks to address an area of great concern for many Kiwis, this is not the way to address gang violence; it sets a terrible precedent that further erodes New Zealanders' speech rights, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
"We already have laws in place for crime and violence. The Government should focus on these, not banning what criminals wear.
"Equally, where New Zealanders feel actively threatened, intimidated, and harassed, the law already exists and should be enforced to protect those going about their daily lives. If we focus on banning certain forms of expression, where do we draw the line?
"Removing gang patches doesn’t mean gangs, or the crime and harm they cause, cease to exist. Suppressing the symptoms of this issue may even make it harder to address the cause itself.
"If the Government is concerned about gang activity, they should focus on exactly that. How these powers are used today sets us on a troubling path for the way they may be manipulated tomorrow."
ENDS
-
Free Speech Union update, 16 September
Our work across the country continues as we keep up the fight for free speech. Welcome to the latest update.
Philip Arps comes last place in election for Te Aratai College Board of Trustees
Philip Arps' decision to run for Board of Trustee at Te Aratai College has drawn a lot of interest over the past month, as he is widely considered to be a white supremacist. Associate Minister for Education, Jan Tinietti, even said that she was looking at whether a law change was necessary to stop individuals with 'ideologies of hate' from being able to run. But there's just one crucial question with that: who gets to decide what an 'ideology of hate' is? You? The next minister who takes your place?
At the Free Speech Union, our position on this issue is very clear. Hate the perspectives and speech of candidates as much as you want, it has to be the voters who decide who's unworthy of public office.
There's a word for this: democracy.
Hate speech laws are the top priority for those who want to control the expression of speech like this. But as American journalist Jonathan Rauch claims 'Hate speech is bad, I agree, but what's bad about it is the hate, not the speech, and just silencing the speech is like dealing with global warming by breaking all the thermometers.'
Whether hate speech laws, legislation that blocks 'ideology of hate' from seeking public office or any number of other disturbing attempts to silence open debate, many leaders in New Zealand have lost faith in the public's good sense.
Censorship is fundamentally anti-democratic. It ultimately silences the voices of the most vulnerable or powerless, that's why we need to fight it in every form.
Is it just me, or are police introducing hate speech laws on the fly?
In an example of incredible overreach, Police in Marlborough have tried to seize and criminalise a flag of the Black Power gang. The officer responsible, Sergeant Graham Single, claims 'People are finding it [the flag] upsetting, they are finding it offensive, and they are objecting to it being displayed. The fact they feel that nothing can be done to prevent the display of the flag plays on their wellbeing and mental health.'
We're not going to claim standing up for gang members' free speech is a popular move, but there's a principle at play here. Once their speech can be undone because people find it offensive and object to it, who's next?
There is nothing in the patch that is inherently promoting crime or violence, this is simply an attempt at the suppression of an organisation’s right to speech and association, as protected under the Bill of Rights.
As we claimed in our media statement on this issue, that the patch is upsetting to some is no excuse for classifying it as objectionable and thankfully the Chief Censor’s office agreed. What was so chilling about the submission made by the police to the censor’s office was the use of the same weak talking-points frequently used by pro-censorship activists in order to violate the rights of the gang chapter. New Zealanders should view this as a seriously distressing development.
The ’N-word’ that features on the flag and patch is offensive to many. But representatives of the chapter have stated that their use of the term is about neutralising it and separating it of its historic power to do harm by making it their own. Surely a historically oppressed and victimsed people should reserve this right, just as a Member of Parliament attempted to reclaim the ‘C-word’ only a few years ago (here's looking at you Marama Davidson). The Police didn’t try to arrest the MP then. How dare anyone, let alone law-enforcement, seek to abuse the law now.
This case really shows how subjective our relationship with words are - how words carry different meanings to different people - and how policing them will always violate someone’s equality. Ultimately, this is just another attempted use of the law to censor and suppress an organisation, with the weak, nebulous justification of ‘offense'.
Media Complaint rules Stuff ran inaccurate and unbalanced article on Bethlehem College
I don't need to tell you that the role of the ‘Fourth Estate’ and accurate journalism is crucial for democracy to function well. But as we can clearly see, ‘activism journalism’ is rampant in our media today.
That’s why we were glad to hear the Media Council
had upheld a complaint against Stuff for inaccuracy and imbalance.The Stuff reporter responsible for this article, Annemarie Quill, failed to seek comment from Bethlehem College before publishing the article in June following accusations of ‘violence, death threats and verbal attacks’ against LGBT students.
This article was one of many that reported on attempts to silence Bethlehem College’s statement of values, where they noted that the school held a traditional view of marriage. Once Stuff was challenged about inaccuracies in the reporting, they said they would take the article down, but never did. Why do we at the Free Speech Union care about a single complaint to the Media Council against Stuff? When the media begins to operate as ‘guardians of acceptable narratives, rather than those who simply present the objective facts of important stories, they being to operate as the priesthood of modern orthodoxies. Public discussion is impoverished through this bias.
Ultimately, it's free speech that enables us to all contribute to important public discussions, but if we’re only being presented with one side, this isn’t possible.
Without free speech, there is no free press. Submission on media merger Bill
Last week, we submitted to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Select Committee on the Government's Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill, which will see Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and TVNZ merged into one media entity.
Freedom of the press and free speech are not the same thing. But they are inextricably entwined. Without the right to express ourselves freely, the press has no freedom to present differing accounts of what is happening in our nation. Therefore, free speech founds this crucial freedom and without a free press, democracy itself can quickly find itself on the rocks.
As Duncan Greive has pointed out, by operating as a not-for profit this entity is ‘likely to dominate NZ media’. The basic fact of the matter is the absence of a profit motive means the new organisation could far too easily undermine competitive voices by operating below cost. This will reduce the spectrum of views presented in our media.
Melissa Lee highlighted clearly when she spoke on this Bill in Parliament, there will also be implications for the diversity of perspectives available in this new media behemoth. One of the reasons for that is the organisation will not rely on advertising to the same extent as is currently required, meaning groups that pay to have their views exposed will no longer have that opportunity.
Even more troublingly, there's the question of 'approved content' and this merger operating as a media behemoth, crushing diverse perspectives. RNZ Chief Executive, Paul Thompson, has made reference to these 'accepted truths', claiming that the merger is driven ‘in part by… the spread of disinformation.’
No organisation or society has ever been well-served by a sector claiming to have a monopoly on truth, be that the church, science, and certainly not the media. Without greater safeguards for free speech in the merger, we fear this is what will occur.
Keen for some great content? Why not check some of this out?
- Did you hear about VUWSA's (Victoria University of Wellington Student Association) decision to bar a mayoral candidate from participating in their mayoral candidate's debate, because of (insert cliche accusations)? Dane Giraud unpacks why handing over the moral hygiene to university students might not be the very best idea.
- I was able to join Dr. Michael Johnstone and Dr. James Kierstead on the New Zealand Initiative Podcast to discuss the release of our University Ranking Report, and why free speech needs to be defended on university campuses most of all.
- Recently released on the Free Speech Union podcast, I sat down with three council candidates to discuss democracy in action in local government. This is not one to miss, with some spicier moments than expected.
Each generation before us has been aware that free speech isn't free. Let's not take it for granted. If you stay in the fight with us, we'll keep standing for all of our freedom to speak openly, without fear.
Thank you for your support.
Jonathan Ayling
Spokesperson
Free Speech Union
www.fsu.nzP.S. Voting papers for local council elections have been sent today, and Kiwis will begin voting next week. As promised, we'll be distributing a voting guide with responses from hundreds of candidates to show those who will stand for free speech. Keep an eye out for this when we send it early next week.
Free Speech Union (New Zealand) Incorporated · New Zealand
This email was sent to [email protected]. To stop receiving emails, click here.
You can also keep up with Free Speech Union on Twitter or Facebook.
Authorised by J. Ayling, Free Speech Union, Level 4, 117 Lambton Quay, Wellington. -
Police Attempts To Criminalise Black Power Gang Patches A Gross Overreach Of Their Duties
13 September 2022FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Police Attempts To Criminalise Black Power Gang Patches A Gross Overreach Of Their Duties
Police attempts to seize and criminalise a flag and the patch of a new chapter of the Black Power gang in the Marlborough region are a gross overreach of their duties and powers, and must be opposed, says Dane Giraud, spokesperson for the Free Speech Union.
“In attempting to secure the classification of an offensive gang patch as objectionable, Police are setting a dangerous precedent of creating ‘hate speech’ on the fly.
“There is nothing in the patch that is inherently promoting crime or violence, this is simply an attempt at the suppression of an organisation’s right to speech and association, as protected under the Bill of Rights.
“That the patch is upsetting to some is no excuse for classifying it as objectionable and thankfully the chief censor’s office agreed. What was so chilling about the submission made by the police to the censor’s office was the use of the same weak talking-points frequently used by pro-censorship activists in order to violate the rights of the gang chapter. New Zealanders should view this as a seriously distressing development.
“The ’N-word’ that features on the flag and patch is offensive to many. But representatives of the chapter have stated that their use of the term is about neutralising it and separating it of its historic power to do harm by making it their own. Surely a historically oppressed and victimsed people should reserve this right, just as a Member of Parliament attempted to reclaim the ‘C-word’ only a few years ago. The Police didn’t try to arrest the MP then. How dare anyone, let alone law-enforcement, seek to abuse the law now.
“This case really shows how subjective our relationship with words are - how words carry different meanings to different people - and how policing them will always violate someone’s equality.
“That race relations commissioner Meng Foon has voiced support for this Police action is also a failure of his responsibility.
“A chapter of a gang using an offensive slur in their patch should be the least of the Police’s concern, especially at the current time of high crime rates. Stamping out criminal activity requires the targeting of that activity, not the speech and free association of groups of people.
“Ultimately, this is just another attempted use of the law to censor and suppress an organisation, with the weak, nebulous justification of ‘offense’.”
You might also like: