Pages tagged "Hate Speech"

  • Record Public Feedback Against Government’s Proposed Anti-speech Laws

    6 August 2021


    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

     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

    “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 2021


    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,, 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 2021


    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:

    Campbell Barry

    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:

    NZ Herald

    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:

    SUFW Billboard

    An online campaign (mostly on Twitter) targeting the Council and billboard company soon followed...

    TwitAnd 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?

    What better example of why our work to defeat the Government's proposals is so important, and why we are asking Kiwis to donate to this important campaign to defend free speech?

    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.  

    Material GirlsKathleen 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). 

    Briefing paper cover

    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


  • 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 2021


    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

    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

  • If The Prime Minister Doesn't Understand Her 'Hate Speech' Law, How Are Kiwis Supposed To?

    28 June 2021


    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

  • Hate Speech Laws Will Not Make New Zealand A Safer And More Tolerant Society

    25 June 2021


    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.


  • The speech censors given a free media pass

    David Seymour’s proposal to abolish the Human Rights Commission reflects widespread suspicion that is has become a taxpayer-funded nest for people plotting to end the freedoms it was established to protect. As Janet Albrechtsen explained last week in The Australian, the same problem afflicts Australia. Instead of defending free speech the Australian Human Rights Commission has been among the institutions trying to punish people who challenge politically correct views.

    The Australian is behind a strict pay-wall, so Janet has authorised the Free Speech Coalition to reproduce her article below. Unfortunately we cannot reproduce the long list of comments the article attracted.

    Janet is a highly qualified lawyer but is best known for her journalism, having been a published commentator in most of Australia’s quality news media.

    Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four has been described as a handbook for difficult times. In a week that marks its publication 70 years ago, please open the handbook for some guidance, for these difficult times.

    Last week Australian Federal Police officers rifled through the home of a News Corp journalist and the offices of ABC journalists. Nothing flashy, no brown-shirted stormtroopers kicking in doors. Just a team of polite civil servants, ordering sandwiches and coffee while they rummaged through homes and workplaces, armed with slippery words in laws to justify them infringing our freedoms.

    Outraged journalists said it was chilling. Alas, many of these same journalists have not been doing their job if they haven’t noticed this is how free speech is silenced today. In the past decade a growing cadre of civil servants, from human rights commissioners to university vie-chancellors, all good mannered, nicely dressed people have used crafty works in laws and other instruments to curb out most fundamental right to speak freely.

    Many of the same journalists who, last week, held up signs for the cameras saying that it is not a crime to be a journalist having not raised so much as an eyebrow about other dismally illiberal events. That makes them complicit in a stifling culture that gave rise to last week’s AFP raids. After all, a free press is only one part of our basic right to speak freely. If you don’t defend the latter, expect to lose the former soon enough.

    Orwell warned us to watch out for New Speak, Thought Police and the Ministry of Truth; their common denominators is slippery language to control speech in order to control how people think. So it came to pass. More than 10 years ago, the Alberta Human Rights Commission in Canada investigated a complaint brought against commentator Ezra Levant for publishing the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. The complaint was dropped, but not before a bureaucrat questioned Levan about his intention in publishing the cartoons.

    Levant described it like this: “No six-foot brown shirt here, no police cell at midnight. Just Shirlene McGovern, an amiable enough bureaucrat, casually asking me about my politcal thoughts, on behalf of the government of Alberta. And she’ll write up a report about is and recommend that the government do this or that to me.

    “I had half-expected a combative, missionary-style interrogator. I found, instead, a limp clerk who was just punching the clock … In a way, that’s more terrifying,” he wrote about the process that reminded him of Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil.

    While a handful of journalists in Australia recognised the early danger signs, many of those outraged by last week’s AFP raids showed little interest. Even when the same thing happened here a few years later, they fell silent.

    In 2011, Andrew Bolt was prosecuted under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act for causing offence by pointing out the foibles of claiming indigenous ancestry. In passing, the judge frowned over the tone of his writing. The Australian Human Rights Commission used the same laws to investigate The Australian’s Bill Leak in 2016 for his powerful cartoon about the complex issues of individual responsibility and the dismal plight of indigenous people. Liberal MP Julian Leeser once said of the UN Human Rights Council: “We read Orwell as a warning; they read Orwell as a textbook.” His observation applies equally to the AHRC: as race commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane encouraged complaints to come forward over Leak’s cartoon.

    The AHRC toyed with students from Queensland University of Technology too after they made innocuous comments on Facebook when they were kicked out of an indigenous-only computer lab. One student wrote: “QUT stopping segregation with segregation.” What part of that was untrue? Yet it took two years of complaints, investigations, interviews and mounting legal bills before the complaint was thrown out. And the chilling effect of those laws remains intact.

    Some of us have reported extensively on the creeping, and creepy, mission of the AHRC. It needs to be renamed; its name is an insult to genuine human rights. And these dismal events need to be laid out, over and over again, until we defeat an illiberal culture that is strangling freedom of expression, the single most important piece of machinery that drives a robust marketplace of ideas. It is the centrifugal force of Western progress.

    Last year, physics professor Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University for raising questions about the quality of climate research by some of his colleagues. The university used a code of conduct and claims of “collegial behavior” to get him off campus. ABC HQ showed no interest in asking why the university didn’t encourage a debate about Ridd’s claims or even why it shut him down.

    During the federal election, the ABC’s senior journalists showed no interest when Greens leader Richard Di Natale said he wanted hate speech laws to regulate the media to hold the likes of Bolt, Alan Jones and Chris Kenny to account. This proposal would kill a free, independent media in Australia. Hate speech, as defined by the like of Di Natale, will be defined by the media they hate. Orwell warned us about this, too. The ABC gave Di Natale a free pass.

    There was no ABC outrage, only nonchalance, when the Gillard government proposed an Orwellian regime of government oversight to make the media “balanced” and “accountable”. As James Paterson, now a Liberal senator, wrote then: “The last time that media outlets were subject to press licensing in the English-speaking world was 1693. What was too tyrannical for the English in the time of William and Mary is apparently acceptable in 21st-century Australia.”

    Note the manipulation of subjective language to curb free speech: the AFP relies on “national security” to search a journalist’s underwear drawer, the Gillard government wanted to legislate for a “balance” and “accountable” media, 18C prohibits people saying things that “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”, the Greens want to outlaw “hate speech”, and a university relied on “collegial behavior”.

    It is critical that we constantly check where society, governments and bureaucracies draw lines to restrict free speech. Journalists want buffer zones around themselves to protect a free press. Fair enough. But where the heck they been when it comes to defending the rights of other Australians to speak freely?

    High-profile hosts at the ABC paid taxpayers to report and comment on this country should be been at the frontline, championing out rights to speak, to draw and to debate freely. As Canadian commentator Mark Steyn famously said about free speech, it is not a left-right thing. It is a free-unfree thing. And therein lies the curse of the modern left: a pusillanimous attitude towards a core piece of intellectual machinery necessary in a healthy democracy.

    By Janet Albrechtsen

    Opinion columnist for the Australian

You might also like: