The PM has given Andrew Little the dubious role of implementing the recommendations set out in the Royal Commission Report into the Christchurch massacre.
The recommendation regarding hate speech is found in Section 8 paragraph 4 of the report.
“Hate speech is a less precise term. In this report we will generally use the expression hate speech to mean speech that expresses hostility towards, or contempt for, people who share a characteristic. Legislation that creates hate speech liability (which can be civil or criminal) specifies what types of speech are captured and characteristics that are protected. In this chapter we are mainly concerned with the circumstances in which hate speech can, and should be, criminalised.”
Report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques on 15 March 2019
Defining “hate speech” is impossible. What is hate speech to one person is perfectly acceptable to another.
For example, imagine a convicted child molester has been released into your neighbourhood. If you happen to have been a child victim of such behaviour it is not unreasonable for you to express hostility towards, or contempt for an unrepentant paedophile let loose in the community without supervision.
Naturally, the Muslim community is hurt and angry that the massacre was not prevented. Some blame inattention by NZ security and intelligence agencies, who they claim were preoccupied with the likelihood, based on overseas experience, that terrorist activity would most likely emerge from within Islamic congregations.
Ardern stupidly supported the Muslim community in atributing blame to government agencies.
“For many years the Muslim community has raised concerns over issues like the disproportionate scrutiny by security and intelligence agencies,” said Ardern.”
But NZSIS Director-General Rebecca Kitteridge contradicted both the PM and critical Muslims.
“”I know that some people with whom NZSIS had engaged felt they were under suspicion or were of security concern when that was not so. In some cases, this caused real anxiety, and led to the belief that the Muslim community was being monitored – which was not and is not the case,” said Kitteridge.”
RNZ
No amount of hate speech law will alleviate victimhood — if anything, fuel will be added to the fire.
The writers of the report state the purpose of a new hate speech law is to achieve social cohesion.
“A socially cohesive society is one in which all individuals and groups have a sense of belonging, social inclusion, participation, recognition and legitimacy.”
This is mission impossible! You will never get all individuals and groups to meet criteria heavily weighted toward feelings instead of accepting a legal entitlement. Anyone in prison or not earning an honest living will never achieve that sense of belonging, participation, recognition and legitimacy. The goal is unrealistic.
The resentment felt by the Islamic community is legitimate and naturally, they are angry, but a hate speech law is not the answer.
“The imam of Al Noor Mosque has called for new laws that “draw a clear line between freedom of speech and hate speech. In many occasions, freedom of speech becomes hate speech and hence turns into hate crime as we have seen it in 15th March terror attack,” he says.”
RNZ
From a position of victimhood, the imam is asking the impossible of the NZ government — and the PM endorsed him!
This week we learned an Afghani news presenter and her driver were murdered because her speech was regarded by ISIS as hate speech. ISIS did what they always do – they violently removed the critic.
“Malalai Maiwand, a presenter at Enikas Radio and TV in the eastern province of Nangarhar, was killed along with her driver in the attack on their vehicle in the regional capital Jalalabad, taking the total number of journalists and media workers killed this year in Afghanistan to 10.
A hate speech law would not have saved these two, or the other 9 journalists and media workers in Afghanistan.
“With the killing of Malalai, the working field for female journalists is getting more smaller and the journalists may not dare to continue their jobs the way they were doing before,” Nai, an Afghan media advocacy group, said in a statement.”
Reuters
Isn’t it ironic that Islamic ISIS uses violence to shut down free speech in Afghanistan, but in NZ an imam wants to shut down free speech with a hate speech law?
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD