I'm going to break a cardinal rule of campaigning today... 

I have always been told that I can only ever ask one thing from you at a time. Campaigners believe that their supporters are too easily distracted, and if I ask you to do two things, you'll probably do neither. 

But I know this one is important to you, and the work we're doing to counter a truly troubling shift in Police culture is too important. So, today, I'm asking if you'll take a few steps with us.  

As you know, last week, I met with Andrew Coster, the Commissioner of Police. It was a combative meeting, and I walked away with our Senior In-House Counsel feeling bruised. But we have no choice but to ensure there is public awareness and pressure on the changes Police are making to how they view the basic right to speak.

I presented the public letter that you signed (with over 12,000 Kiwis, in just a handful of days).

In response, the Commissioner has instructed a review of the training and told me that supposed examples of 'hate speech' like 'there are only two genders' and 'Kiwi, not Iwi' will be removed.

These are not insignificant victories, but now is not the time to let up.  

We are your voice in these rooms, because you continue to step up and stand with us. We're humbled to fight alongside you, and today there are three things I need from you. 

______________________________________________

My Board probably wont like me asking you for three things, but I think you care about this issue enough to press in.

1. First, we need to expose what Police are recording, and the best way to do that is through Privacy Requests.

You have a right to know what information the Government holds on you. This is kind of like an Official Information Request (OIA) on yourself.

On our website, we've list how to make a privacy request to Police. This way, you'll will be able to see what information Police are recording and what speech they are concerned by.

My staff have a bet going amongst themselves on whether Police have a file on me. What do you think? I certainly hope not. Police should take no issue with advocates for free speech- if I (or my staff, or you!) are recorded because of that, things are worse than we feared.

Through lodging these requests, we'll be able to find out. 

<<See how to submit a Privacy Request to Police>>

I think I can anticipate a concern some of our supporters might have in asking us to lodge these requests. Is flooding Police with this work really what we want to see law enforcement time spent on? Isn't this keeping them from real crime?

I agree. That's why I wish they weren't being trained to 'Recognise', 'Record', and 'Respond' to 'hate speech' and why I wish they weren't attending to non-criminal hate incidents. 

There is real, serious crime they should be attending to. So the moment the Commissioner calls off this training and we're confident Kiwis aren't being tracked by Police on the basis of perfectly legal speech, we'll stop this work entirely.  

2. Second, we need to increase pressure on our politicians who are just letting this happen.

This Police training was signed off by the Cabinet in 2020, even before the 'Hate Speech' law reform proposals were released. It has been underway for some time, but only now (and only thanks to the Free Speech Union and the brave officers who approached us) is the public more fully aware.

The ACT Party has already called for Police to "explain 'hate speech' training. The Minister of Justice was shocked when he learned about what Police were implementing, saying 'but why? We don't have 'hate crime' laws'.

But surprisingly (and concerningly), New Zealand First hasn't said 'boo' on this issue. And we think it's not good enough. If this Government is going to continue along with anti-speech policies from the previous Government, we're going to have something to say about it. 

In addition to submitting a privacy request to Police to see what information they are holding on you, we need you to contact your local MP and tell them that the Police's new training threatens to undermine Kiwis' basic rights. With the Free Speech Union managing three cases of wrongful arrest already from just the past nine months, we're deeply concerned this training will prime officers to abuse more basic rights.  

You can see a list here of every Member of Parliament, along with their contact information. We don't need you to flood every MP's inbox; just contact your local MP. If each of our supporters contacted their local MP, that will leave a significant impression (MPs are also much more concerned about the views of their local voters than random citizens). Even better, you'd ask to meet with them, to discuss how concerned you are about this training.

I've included a few talking points below:

- Te Raranga (The Weave) is the name of the Police training programme that instructs officers to 'Recognise, Record, and Respond' to 'hate speech, 'hate crime', and 'non-criminal hate incidences;

- New Zealand has very narrow 'hate speech' laws that have only been used once. We have no law for 'hate crimes', and certainly nothing that mandates Police to keep records of legal activity they think might be hateful.

- This training was implemented as a result of Recommendation 42 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Attack, but Police have gone even further beyond what the recommendation included.  

- It is not Police's job to police 'hate'. While 'hate' may be an issue in some communities, trying to criminalise thoughts and beliefs, not simply actions, is a fool's errand. 

- The result of the review of the training must be that this training is canned. 

3. Third, we need you to join the Free Speech Union. By joining, you provide resources to our team so that we can continue this work (and as you know, this is hardly the only fight we have on- Law Commission proposing making misgendering illegal, anyone?). 

But more than simply providing us with the resources we need to keep up the fight, by joining the Union you are putting your name alongside thousands of other Kiwis' saying that the fight for basic rights and free speech is a priority for you.

You're standing with those who say 'enough with talking about free speech, I'm going to do something about it.'

______________________________________________

Easy as 1. 2. 3.

Let's reject a Police culture that busies itself with our opinions. Call on them to simply enforce the law.  

Jonathan Ayling Chief Executive Free Speech Union www.fsu.nz

Don't prove me wrong in believing that our supporters are invested in this fight enough to handle more than one action point. Take all three steps now to defend free speech: 

1. Submit a Privacy Request to Police.

2. Contact your local MP with the talking points above.

3. Join the Free Speech Union.

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.