Post by Crash Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:59:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony Post by Crash
On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 14:40:07 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Why does Ardern insist on lying when she knows she will be caught out. Oh I
know, Rich taught her.
To be fair I think the whole scenario arises from a personal
conviction on the part of Ms Ardern (and many others) that the
sentiments expressed by Brenton Tarrant leading up to the March 15
massacre should in some way be as illegal as the taking of lives that
ensued. People should be prosecuted for saying such things on the
basis that verballising such ideas increases the possibility of
incitement to commit a crime. Ergo, making it illegal to say such
things helps prevent the violence that Tarrant unleashed.
However hate-speech is extremely difficult to accurately define. The
connection between publishing hate and those using that hate to
justify mass-murder is equally tenuous. The PM though must be seen to
do something to prevent another such event. The fact that we cannot
predict if or when another event like this might happen is a political
inconvenience - something must be done - hence the hate-speech
It is a bit like banning all traffic in Auckland because one pedestrian gets
tragically killed. Too far maybe?
You are the only person making such a suggestoin, Tony, and of course
it is nothing like suggesting that perhaps our laws need some
adjustment for those that incite illegal actions against others. So
yes, too far.
While Tony's example is a point too far, so is the corner that Ms
Ardern has painted herself into in respect of hate speech law.
Inciting others to break the law is already illegal.
Not to the extent that many think - see
and from that article:
"The opposition also hasnt helped clarify the situation, claiming the
law will restrict and regulate the words that come out of our mouths
(as a reminder, the law already exists in regards to racism and in an
arguably looser form). Judith Collins claimed it is already a crime to
incite violence and these draconian proposed laws wont plug a hole
in the law.
However, University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis says thats
not entirely true. While it is already a crime to incite specific acts
of violence (like calling on people to torch someones house) and it
is a crime to threaten to kill specific individuals, he says it is not
currently illegal to threaten to kill members of a general group.
We saw this play out very recently in relation to a YouTube video
where a guy threatened to slaughter Maori people, Prof Geddis says.
The police initially couldnt arrest him for this, until the
Classification Office deemed the video to be objectionable then
they could arrest and charge him for making an objectionable
This approach is a bit of an end-run around the limits in the Crimes
Act, but it depends on the speech in question being a publication
(i.e. not simply verbal in nature) and rising to the level of being
objectionable under our censorship legislation."
Post by Crash
In her reaction
to the horrors of the March 15 massacre, Ardern seeks to make
published hatred illegal but clearly this is very difficult to define
such that honestly-held opinions can still be published.
Yes I believe this is a very difficult area to draftlaw that delivers
what is wanted, which is why balanced and informed discussion is
needed - the article I posted above ends with some words on why
legislation does need to bereviewed -
"Ironically tragically the debate about the proposed law may be
generating the kind of behaviour it is designed to stop. Islamic
Womens Council spokesperson Anjum Rahman says she is concerned debate
about the proposal will see the Muslim community subject to further
There is a danger that people will be unhappy with the law and then
they will blame the Muslim community for it, Rahman says. One of our
primary concerns is our communitys safety, just because of this
debate. Weve seen material, Im not going to say who it was from,
blaming the Muslim community for trying to silence us and stopping
us from criticising their religion. There were photos of victims
families from Christchurch associated with that material. Like, people
who had lost loved ones in the attacks. Its very real.
Despite this, she says she wants to see a healthy debate over the
People have concerns. I think we should talk about them. We should
see if this is the best wording
I think we can come to some sort of
understanding, but it would be really great if we didnt have this
kind of politicisation of this and, again, the notion that people are
just trying to silence criticism or offensive language.
We know that hate speech can turn into hateful actions
Criminalisation is not going to solve all of that by any means, and it
would be ridiculous to say these law changes are going to have a huge
impact on the whole of the problem. But what Im saying is its one
tool and there should be some legal redress for the worst cases.
But Rahman says she is still hesitant to have her say.
Its a conundrum for me. If I speak up about it then people will
deliberately make it a Muslim issue, and if I stay silent then I dont
get to have my voice heard.
And this goes to the heart of why the royal commission proposed the
changes in the first place to make New Zealand a more cohesive
society to help all people feel safe and welcome. To create a
society where people arent afraid to speak up because they will be
targeted for their religion. To create a country where the kind of
hate that led to March 15 will not be allowed to grow again."
Post by Crash Post by Rich80105 Post by Tony
They do not understand what they are proposing and therefore are incapable of
explaining it. Best to drop it until there is clarity.
It appears you know even less, but are proposing that discussion by
others be stopped - what are you trying to hide, Tony?
Rich how do you fail to understand that hate speech is difficult to
define without suppressing the right to free speech?
One of the fundamental issues is where the concept of free speech
comes up against other freedoms. The right to free speech should not
ignore other freedoms, as the article above makes clear. Having to use
a classification from the Classification Office for a You Tube video
does not prevent exactly the same objectionable statements being made
verbally - it is an anomoly that needs to be fixed though legislation.
Those changes however do need discussion; dropping proposals and the
recommendations of the Royal Commission will not give that clarity.
Yes it is difficult, and we almost certainly will not get what
everyone wants, but just as the 'anti-smacking' legisation (which did
not actually stop smacking) has introduced penalties for some clear
child abuse that was previously unable to be prosecuted through an
anomaly in the law.