I'm no lawyer, but "inciting ... disharmony, based on an intent to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred, through ... insulting communication” sounds to me like a pretty low bar for liability.
Hi Alister. I'd agree with that. My view is that any such law should not use the word hate at all, but should be based on intent to cause disorder or to cause harm to a person or group of people. That would just be an extension of the existing crime of threatening to kill or injure someone.
Do the police get to decide what is a hate crime ? Why did the police decide that 1 person using white paint on a rainbow crossing was a hate crime, but the violent mob of haters that attacked Posie Parker and her supporters in Albert park wasnt a hate crime. A dozen police turned up at the rainbow crossing, but the police simply ignored the violent mob at Albert park, and said to the victims "if you dont like it you can leave." It doesnt matter what the law is if the police are biased and corrupt.
Did anyone lay such a complaint after the Posie Parker event? I don't know. But note that the Police say "There are currently no specific offences called ‘hate crime’ in New Zealand law".
Yes - agree "inciting ... disharmony ... insulting communication' is a seriously low bar that could shut down justifiable dissent. The danger here for is that while speech that is offensive may provoke, insult and disturb particular groups, its critique of those in power may be correct. So i may not like the way it is said and the nature of the criticism, but the critique may have more than a grain of truth. For example Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope in 1992 as a protest at the sexual abuse in the Catholic church was no doubt offensive to many. At the time this was not an issue that was widely acknowledged in the public arena (and she came in for a lot of criticism) but 20 years the extent of this abuse was acknowledged - the last two Popes have apologised and the Catholic church is working through the ramifications of this for the church. Sinead had the courage of her convictions and the bravery to speak truth to power. While the recommendations above aim to make our society more benign, we need to be cautious in moves to shut down rude, offensive and provocative speech (which i admit can be seriously annoying) as this could have unfortunate implications.
Really good example, thanks Mark. We tend to think of hate speech law as a protection for vulnerable minorities, but the tables can be turned. The present s 131 is loosely worded, and should be amended or repealed. But be careful what they replace it with!
Hate speech seems to be like porn in that it's "hard to define on paper, but you know it when you see it". I can say though, without any doubt, that a major factor in boosting hate speech is a hyperclass with plenty of dark money & axes to grind. To name just a few: Musk's takeover of the former bird site, Murdoch's propaganda organs...
I'm no lawyer, but "inciting ... disharmony, based on an intent to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred, through ... insulting communication” sounds to me like a pretty low bar for liability.
Hi Alister. I'd agree with that. My view is that any such law should not use the word hate at all, but should be based on intent to cause disorder or to cause harm to a person or group of people. That would just be an extension of the existing crime of threatening to kill or injure someone.
Do the police get to decide what is a hate crime ? Why did the police decide that 1 person using white paint on a rainbow crossing was a hate crime, but the violent mob of haters that attacked Posie Parker and her supporters in Albert park wasnt a hate crime. A dozen police turned up at the rainbow crossing, but the police simply ignored the violent mob at Albert park, and said to the victims "if you dont like it you can leave." It doesnt matter what the law is if the police are biased and corrupt.
Hi Mark. You can read about how the Police handle complaints of hate-motivated crime here:
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-services/advice-victims/hate-motivated-crime
Did anyone lay such a complaint after the Posie Parker event? I don't know. But note that the Police say "There are currently no specific offences called ‘hate crime’ in New Zealand law".
Yes - agree "inciting ... disharmony ... insulting communication' is a seriously low bar that could shut down justifiable dissent. The danger here for is that while speech that is offensive may provoke, insult and disturb particular groups, its critique of those in power may be correct. So i may not like the way it is said and the nature of the criticism, but the critique may have more than a grain of truth. For example Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope in 1992 as a protest at the sexual abuse in the Catholic church was no doubt offensive to many. At the time this was not an issue that was widely acknowledged in the public arena (and she came in for a lot of criticism) but 20 years the extent of this abuse was acknowledged - the last two Popes have apologised and the Catholic church is working through the ramifications of this for the church. Sinead had the courage of her convictions and the bravery to speak truth to power. While the recommendations above aim to make our society more benign, we need to be cautious in moves to shut down rude, offensive and provocative speech (which i admit can be seriously annoying) as this could have unfortunate implications.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/jul/27/sinead-oconnor-ripped-up-the-popes-photo-on-tv-snl
Really good example, thanks Mark. We tend to think of hate speech law as a protection for vulnerable minorities, but the tables can be turned. The present s 131 is loosely worded, and should be amended or repealed. But be careful what they replace it with!
Hate speech seems to be like porn in that it's "hard to define on paper, but you know it when you see it". I can say though, without any doubt, that a major factor in boosting hate speech is a hyperclass with plenty of dark money & axes to grind. To name just a few: Musk's takeover of the former bird site, Murdoch's propaganda organs...
...and that kind of thing fueling very nasty riots in UK at the moment!
Which is why I'm attempting to encourage accounts on the ex-bird site to migrate to Bluesky, & deny Musk any further oxygen.
A very important point, thank you Kiri! I can only see this getting worse with AI, sadly.