Pages tagged "Hate Speech"
-
Mr Hunt, you don’t speak for me
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt’s op-ed yesterday defending the government's proposed hate speech laws is thoroughly predictable after a month of terrible comms that failed to convince New Zealanders on the issue. An overwhelming 80% of submissions opposed the laws. This has failed to move Hunt, who seems happy to be out of step with the rest of New Zealand.
And make no mistake, those opposed to the laws are incredibly diverse. Our steering group itself is made up of several members from ethnic and religious minority groups and folk from the LGBT community. Despite this, Paul Hunt has labelled us an “uninterested party” and will not meet with us. His reasons barely need explaining: these minority members won't support his narrative.
Paul Hunt argues in his piece that hate speech is wrong because “it denies dignity and equality to individuals and communities”. Where is the dignity in the State sending police officers to knock at your door over opinions you've expressed? Where is the dignity for the family le> without a father or mother while this parent sits in a prison cell, for up to three years, due to words they spoke? The freer the society, the more dignity. A society that censors speech to the degree we see in the proposed laws is a society with utter contempt for its citizens, and their dignity.
Hunt also talks of hate speech denying equality. But it is speech restrictions that deny equality. All you must do is think of the potential impact on feminists should laws be brought in that prohibit robust criticism of gender identity. The effect of such a law will unquestionably “stack the deck” against women and women's issues. But these laws will go much further. They will very specifically violate the equality of minorities within our minority groups. Take, for example, anti-Zionist Jews within the Jewish community, minority Muslim sects like the Ahmadiyya community, and dissenting LGBT voices, such as lesbians who have all but been thrown out of PRIDE celebrations due to wrong- think. If international trends are anything to go by, nonconforming minorities have the most to fear from the proposed new laws.
Hunt writes in his piece “if you are powerful and privileged it is easy to dismiss the idea of boundaries indicating what is acceptable but if you are a member of a disadvantaged group or ethnic minority, faith community, sexual minority a woman or disabled person boundaries matter”. What Hunt is trying to say here is that minorities “get it” and that by promoting this illiberal policy he is somehow speaking for us. A recent poll commissioned by the Free Speech Union found that 42% of Muslims now oppose the proposed laws. The Jewish community was so split over them that many of the planned submissions were abandoned. Hunt is simply lying when he suggests minority groups are of one mind on this. The Human Rights Commission very carefully curates who it will speak to within our groups and simply ignores the perspectives that don’t bolster their arguments. This is a common talking point within our communities. This is seriously damaging to us because it denies us our diversity and sends a dangerous message to the public that the majority of us want to take our fellow New Zealander's rights away. Be assured, this is simply not true.
The fact is, minorities know better than most of the importance of free speech - even nasty and truly offensive speech - because free speech was the central principle that delivered us full rights in the West. A>er claiming he is concerned about hate speech promulgating stereotypes, Hunt is trying to promote a picture of us to the public that is false.
Your average member of a minority group has far more to fear from the advocacy of individuals like Hunt and his speech restrictions than we do from offensive or even hateful speech. Both Hunt and the laws are determined to associate us with fear in state censorship in people’s minds, and in doing so will throw up walls between us and the majority. Maybe as an especially privileged member of the majority himself, Hunt just is unable to grasp this. But signalling to wider New Zealand that they need one of their most basic rights taken away in order to make us happy is reckless and irresponsible.
This man is not our friend.
Not only does Hunt fail to make any real defence of speech restrictions in his op-ed, but he calls into question the function of his organisation and makes clear that it is minority groups that should be leading anti-racist campaigns and programs – not detached, upper-class academics.
Even if I could be convinced his intentions are 100% pure, Hunt’s goal of controlling the speech of everyday New Zealanders will hurt minorities and must be rejected.
Dane Giraud is a member of the Jewish Community and a Council Member of the Free Speech Union.
-
Record Public Feedback Against Government’s Proposed Anti-speech Laws
6 August 2021FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
More than 15,000 Kiwis have submitted to the Ministry of Justice against the proposed “hate speech” laws and endorsed Free Speech Union’s submission via its submission tool website www.FreeSpeechSubmission.com.
In addition, nearly 40,000 Kiwis signed a seperate “Save Free Speech” petition calling for the Government’s proposals to be dropped, says Jonathan Ayling, Campaign Manager for the Free Speech Union.
“There is clearly strong opposition to these changes, and the Government needs to throw them out. As far as we can tell, no other public consultation has ever had such a large response. The Free Speech Union’s supporters alone have filed more submissions than the total number received by the Climate Change Commission in its recent consultation.
“Our submission - now endorsed by more than 15,000 Kiwis, carefully outlines the dangers associated with changes of this kind, and why the proposals are not in the public good. The submission is available at http://www.fsu.nz/submission.
“Our broad coalition of individuals, minority groups, and organisations shows that free speech is not a left-right political issue. It’s a human rights issue that Kiwis want to defend. The best path for social cohesion is through an unswerving dedication to civil liberties which these "hate speech" proposals undermine.
"The New Zealand public has categorically rejected these proposals, and this overwhelming response gives no choice to the Government. The Prime Minister and Minister Faafoi must accept the public response to this consultation and maintain free speech in New Zealand by dropping these proposed changes."
-
More Than 10,000 New Zealanders Submit Against Proposed “Hate Speech” Changes
4 August 2021FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Kiwi public has responded loud and clear to the Government’s questions raised in the consultation document on proposed hate speech changes: they don’t want the Government policing their speech, says Jonathan Ayling, Campaign Manager for the Free Speech Union.
“More than 10,000 kiwis have submitted to the Ministry of Justice, claiming the ambiguous, unworkable changes amount to an overreach by the Government into our civil liberties. Engagement like this at the consultation phase shows how strongly New Zealander’s feel, and the threat they see to their freedoms in these changes. That us why these changes shouldn’t go forward.
“The website created to facilitate submissions to the Ministry of Justice on this issue, www.FreeSpeechSubmission.com, went live on 17, July, and in a little-over-two-weeks, we have had an overwhelming response from the public endorsing the submission of the Free Speech Union, and submitting their own views.
“In particular we are encouraged by the huge quantity of feedback from minority communities pointing out that anti-speech laws are far more likely to damage rather than protect social cohesion.”
“Ministers’ inability to to explain what would be criminalised under these proposals reveals the danger they pose to free speech. Vague intention is an irresponsible way to legislate. The Government should listen to the public, and drop these proposed reforms.”
-
Kiwis Opposed To Hate Speech Changes According To Recent Polling
15 July 2021FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Kiwis Opposed To Hate Speech Changes According To Recent Polling
"Polling commissioned by the Free Speech Union shows that kiwis aren’t interested in the Government’s proposed changes to hate speech laws, saying ‘no’ to policed speech", says Dr. David Cumin, a Spokesperson for the Free Speech Union.
“43% of New Zealander’s oppose the proposed changes outright, with only 31% showing any support for them. Overall, there is -12% support for these changes, with more than double the opposition (-27%) among men."
“While almost a majority of kiwis are saying no to these changes, 37% are still undecided. As the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice continue to highlight the ambiguity of these changes and their dangerous implications, we are confident even more kiwis will also oppose the proposals."
“The region to show the strongest support is Christchurch, which makes sense given their horrific experience of March 15. Yet, despite the Government’s insinuations, the Royal Commission made clear that hate speech laws would have done nothing to stop the shooter. Instead, these proposed laws are more likely to penalise everyday New Zealanders."
“The Government has shown it doesn’t understand the implications of these changes, and the public has shown that it doesn’t want this law to go through. The Minister of Justice should shelve these reforms until they are more detailed and clear."
The polling was conducted by Curia Market Research from Monday 5 July to 8 July, and collected the responses of 1,000 eligible New Zealand voters. The margin for error was +/- 3.1% at the 95% confidence level. Full polling report available here.
-
Free Speech Update: Dictionary definition of "woman" = hate speech | Army defeated by essay | Speakeasy invite |
Dear Supporter,
This update is a little longer than usual – the team has been busy with both the 'hate speech' campaign and the new attacks by New Zealand's would-be censors. As you'll see below, even the NZ Army has gone woke – censoring an essay competition winner that, well, argued that being able to fight as an army is as important as diversity. We're also inviting you to our first "Speakeasy" event on Thursday 22 July.
Two more wins for free speech re Speak Up for Women
Wellington Council forced to backtrack
Speak Up for Women will hold a public meeting in Wellington tonight at the Michael Fowler Centre. The Council had sent lawyers to the High Court proceedings we supported in Auckland to see if they could get away with cancelling the event. Given the resoundingly strong judgement in our Court of Appeal judgement, and the subsequent High Court judgement in Speak Up for Women’s favour, Wellington City Council had no choice to back down.
But that didn't stop Hutt City Mayor Cambell from sticking his oar in. Despite the High Court Judge stating that Speak Up for Women "cannot rationally be described as a hate group", here is what Mr Barry said on Facebook soon after the announcement of the Wellington event:
The comment reads “If this group needs a venue in the Hutt, I’ve got some nice new waste bins they can use?”
Of course elected members are perfectly entitled to free speech too, as they are entitled to their personal views. But in their dispense of public facilities, they are required to maintain viewpoint neutrality. The Mayor should not be using their official platforms (Council halls/facilities) to take sides on issues – or mocking a group of feminists because he disagrees with their political views.
As well as being discriminatory, the comment is in clear contradiction to the Court judgement we received last month that Councils cannot discriminate based on politics when making public facilities available. This comment flies in the face of the law, and is a gross breach of Mr Barry’s duties to uphold it.
Your humble Free Speech Union laid a code of conduct complaint against Hutt City Mayor Campbell Barry last week. You can read the complaint here.
Our pressure has forced the Mayor to apologise
Our complaint had the desired impact. Yesterday's NZ Herald reported on the Mayor's apology and picked up my comments on behalf of the FSU:
Dictionaries under attack?
Definition of "woman" = hate speech?
After the wins against councils, we hoped this issue might quieten down - but on Tuesday we got the news that a billboard in central Wellington has been pulled down because (you couldn't make this up!) the dictionary definition of "women" is, apparently, "trans-exclusionary" and therefore may be "hate speech".
Here's the Billboard Speak Up for Women put up on Monday:
An online campaign (mostly on Twitter) targeting the Council and billboard company soon followed...
And while walking to work on Tuesday, we realised that the billboard company had capitulated:
1News has picked up the story: 'Anti-trans' billboard removed from Wellington's CBD
If a billboard with literally just the dictionary definition of "women" can be successfully accused of being 'hate speech' and therefore removed, what hope is there that the Government's criminalisation of hate speech laws won't be misused?
Naturally, we are talking to SUFW about their legal and political options. Maybe a friendly Wellington property owner will put their hand up to erect our own billboard in response? 😉
Our first Speakeasy event: Free speech and the war over sex and gender
Given recent events, we are delighted to announce our first Speakeasy webinar. Join us on July 22 at 7pm via Zoom for an evening of frank, informed conversation about free speech, why it matters and how it’s threatened today.
We'll be in conversation with our special guest, Kathleen Stock, author and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex. Kathleen has been aggressively targeted by the outrage mob for her insistence that the relationship between sex and gender can never be “beyond debate”. She has become a figurehead for the pushback against the censorious approach of organisations like "Stonewall", in which everyday language and ordinary people’s understanding of what men and women are have been declared offensive, bigoted or discriminatory.
Kathleen will draw on the analysis set out in her new book, Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism, to take us through the reasons why this issue has become so controversial, not just amongst activists and intellectuals but across our institutions and our political and cultural life, leading to the extraordinary denunciation of JK Rowling and others. Throughout, Kathleen has exemplified the spirit of good faith debate and has actively defended the free speech of others. Last year she was awarded an OBE in recognition of her contribution to higher education.The event is exclusive to FSU members, members of Speak Up for Women, and those who helped crowdfund the recent free speech litigation against councils for trying to de-platform the group. If you’re a member or financial supporter, please register here.
Update on our Hate Speech campaign - 25,000 kiwis on board ✍️
More than 25,000 Kiwis have signed up to our "Save Free Speech" campaign against the Government's proposed hate speech laws – a great start. If you've not already, help get us to 30,000 and beyond by clicking here and sharing the petition on Facebook.
We've nearly finished our formal submission and are currently building an online tool to make it easy for you to formally submit on the proposals. We'll email you the tool early next week.
Briefing Paper on Government hate speech proposals
Our volunteers are also reaching out to affected communities we think could be (or should be!) concerned about the legislation. We've put together a short briefing paper on what the proposals are (click here to read online).
Lee Williams: Should banks be pulling services for political views?
We've had a number of enquiries over recent weeks about events involving controversial YouTuber Lee Williams (no relation) – who first came to our attention after media reported on apparent "white supremacist statements" and a campaign by the Twitter "community" to have Mr Williams sacked and more.
In short, we are very concerned with Westpac's apparent decision to pull banking services on the basis of Mr Williams' political postings. It's one thing to lose your job for making political (or offensive, depending on your viewpoint) YouTube videos. It's quite another to lose the ability to bank.
In defending free speech, we are often required to defend views we don't agree with. That's the essential test of whether you're a champion for free speech or not. I shared my own views on Mr Williams material in this blog post, but ultimately my personal views are immaterial to the defence of free speech.
If activists have the power to close their political opponents' bank accounts and prevent them from supporting themselves, this is a development that will have disastrous consequences for this country. After mounting this successful "campaign", who will they have their sights on tomorrow?
I've written a blog piece about the issue, and written to Westpac. You can read both here.
The essay that defeated the NZ Army?
Last week an essay titled ‘Can the Army Afford to go Woke, Benign Social Progress or National Security Threat’ was selected as best written in a Defence Force essay writing competition. It was duly published on the Defence Force’s website before it mysteriously disappeared and was replaced with a note from the Chief of Army Major General John Boswell apologising for its publication.
This is getting ridiculous. Our society was built on a commitment to free and fearless debate — a value that countless troops have laid their lives down for. The Defence Force should be steadfast in its defence of this sacred tradition, not seek to undermine it!
We decided to republish the full essay on our website. Have a read and judge for yourself whether you think it should have been taken down and apologised for.
If the NZ's armed forces won't defend our human rights, we need to! Thank you for your continued support.
Jordan Williams
General Secretary
Free Speech Union
www.fsu.nz -
Briefing Paper: Summary of hate speech law proposals
If embed does not work, access the briefing paper by clicking here.
-
Hate Speech Detector: Website Launched For Kiwis To Check Their Speech Against New Laws
2 July 2021FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Given recent confusion about what the proposed ‘hate speech’ laws mean, which appeared to even stump the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, the Free Speech Union has launched a vital tool for Kiwis to ‘check their speech’ at www.HateSpeechDetector.com
The Union’s spokesman Dr David Cumin, slightly tongue in cheek, said, “We’ve teamed up with the country’s best machine learning experts to create this crucial tool. It analyses statements people feel might be controversial to determine if they will be criminalised under the proposed "hate speech" laws.”
“In a democracy, no one should be uncertain about what they can say and not say. Asking the Police, or the courts to arbitrate political, religious, or even offensive, speech is chilling.”
The website is a part of a new campaign from the Free Speech Union to convince the Government to withdraw its proposed new laws, or at the very least limit the changes to what the Royal Commission actually said. New Zealanders are asked to support the campaign by adding their name to the petition against the new anti-speech laws at www.SaveFreeSpeech.co.nz
-
If The Prime Minister Doesn't Understand Her 'Hate Speech' Law, How Are Kiwis Supposed To?
28 June 2021FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
If The Prime Minister Doesn't Understand Her 'Hate Speech' Law, How Are Kiwis Supposed To?
The more that our elected lawmakers talk about the proposed 'hate speech' laws, the more concerned New Zealanders should become, according to the Free Speech Union.
“Over the weekend the Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, couldn't clearly say that millennials wouldn't be up for possibly three years in jail if they wrote something that spoke ill of boomers as blame for not being able to afford a house,” said Dr David Cumin, a Spokesman for the Free Speech Union.
"This morning the Prime Minister told the AM Show the proposed law was to 'clarify' the existing legislation, was to stop incitement to violence against groups, and political opinion would not be included as a protected category."
“The PM’s comments do not match the proposals issued by her Government. If the proposed law change is just about stopping incitement to violence, why is the wording not so clear?”
“And why would our PM allow incitement to violence against people with a certain political opinion? Surely, when the threshold of inciting violence is breached, whoever is the target should be protected. Inciting violence towards anyone is already criminal, and rightly so.”
“Something doesn't add up. Either the politicians don’t understand what they are doing, or they are misleading Kiwis.”
The Free Speech Union is calling on New Zealanders to join its campaign against the proposed ‘hate speech’ laws at www.fsu.nz/support
-
Hate Speech Laws Will Not Make New Zealand A Safer And More Tolerant Society
25 June 2021FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Hate Speech Laws Will Not Make New Zealand A Safer And More Tolerant Society
The Free Speech Union is reacting with concern to the Government's plan to make speech criminal and says the proposals will go no way towards making New Zealand a safer and more tolerant society.
The law would change so that a person who intentionally incites, stirs up, maintains or normalises hatred against any protected group of people, would be liable for up to three years in prison if they did so by being threatening, abusive or even insulting.
Spokesperson for Union, David Cumin says, “The government claims these changes to hate speech laws will promote social cohesion. The opposite is true — legislating hatred out of existence is a hopeless expectation. What's more, the government is yet to provide examples of the speech they intend these provisions to capture.”
“The ambiguity of certain words in the legislation such as ‘insulting’ imports a real risk that speech may fall within the ambit for prosecution that was never intended to be criminalised by those envisioning the proposals.”
“Free speech has to mean the ability to insult. Democracy can’t work if the powers at be can deem certain arguments or speech as illegal.”
“Alarmingly, being found guilty of hate speech would carry a higher penalty than some violent offences. In any event, a lengthy prison sentence is unlikely to be the best mechanism to make an intolerant person rethink their views, if anything, it will push them into dark corners that would make violence a more tangible possibility.”
“New Zealanders should prepare for the very real possibility that those who take offence to tweets, crass statements or unsavoury protests will run to law-enforcement to have their offence indulged. The Union has already been contacted by members of Police concerned about having to enforce these proposals. While the ambit for successful prosecution may be high, overseas experience has shown that the introduction of such laws has resulted in law enforcement consistently missing the mark, and has created a structure allowing for legal harassment of the state against citizens, even if they are ultimately found not guilty.”
“The Free Speech Union will be fighting these proposals and invite all Kiwis who value this human right to join us.”
-
Dane Giraud: Prof. Paul Spoonley Doesn't Believe in the Multicultural Society
Distinguished Professor Paul Spoonley, a long-time observer of the far-Right and supporter of new hate speech legislation, and Elliot Ikilei, deputy leader of the New Conservatives met to debate hate speech legislation on June 29th at Victoria University. Prof Spoonley no doubt feels deeply that new legislation will better protect minority groups and his concern and energy directed this goal is commendable, but having listened to him a number of times now, his arguments tend to lack depth and explanation and rely on broad assumptions, dare I say even characterisations, of minority groups.
The organisers of the event were the Shalom Students Association and Prof Spoonley focused on the spike in antisemitism around the world especially since 2015/ 16, and an increased need to protect our Jewish community*. Sadly, he never articulated exactly how hate speech legislation would prevent future atrocities. He’s in good company, the Human Rights Commission Chief Commissioner Paul S. Hunt hasn’t managed an explanation either, failing spectacularly in a 2019 RNZ interview with Kim Hill. We were left to assume that Prof Spoonley believes potentially dangerous racists will simply put down their pens at the introduction of new laws, shrug their shoulders and quietly find something better to do with their time. As speech restrictions are invariably a violation of democracy and equality, we really need to understand exactly how they will be effective.
Another striking thing about Prof Spoonley is, for all his professed knowledge of the far-Right, and concern about antisemitism, he doesn’t seem to understand that this ancient hatred is also a conspiracy theory making it a particularly complex form of racism. Advertising that it is no longer legal to express your displeasure at Jewish influence plays directly into ‘Jewish control’ narratives, potentially making the far-Right mission seemingly more urgent to the most deranged. In the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto, the killer explicitly states that his murderous act will hopefully beget more chaos due to the illiberal policies the government would likely implement. Add the martyr complex embedded in these movements and one has every reason to fear new laws could serve as a provocation. Why is Prof. Spoonley confident this wouldn’t be the case?
Prof Spoonley’s closing address placed new hate speech legislation in the context of our changing demographics and this, to me, was the most disappointing aspect of his showing the other night. Does Prof. Spoonley really believe that multicultural nations demand illiberal speech laws in order to work? And if we are facing acute divisions, as he suggests, wouldn’t it be counter intuitive to hand advantage to select factions? And what does it say about attitudes towards minority groups among sections of academia when Prof. Spoonley suggests hateful speech silences members of minority groups from contributing to the wider debate? Plenty of people, from all walks of life, shy away from engaging online due to the intensity of the discourse. I’m a member of a minority group who is more than happy to jump in and give as good as I get, and I have plenty of Muslim and other friends who are just as confrontational. The narrative of the wall flower minority member is already a rather well-established, convenient trope among academics of Spoonley’s ilk that denies the strength and diversity within these groups.
Elliot Ekilei, in starting off his night, wanted to make clear that he was not an academic and that his own positions would be informed by the streets and his years of activism in South Auckland. As pleasant as Elliot always is, it started to feel like a thinly veiled insult the longer he wrung this towel. Yet for all of Prof. Spoonley’s experience and knowledge I was left feeling there is still significant distance between himself and some of our minority groups. This gap in understanding won’t serve minorities very well. To his credit, Prof. Spoonley admitted we need more debate on the topic, and I would personally love to take him up on this, potentially on the Free Speech Coalition podcast. Professor Spoonley, the invitation is open.
* The NZ Jewish Council oppose new hate speech legislation which is something it would be good to hear Prof Spoonley address at some point.
You might also like: