Note: You can make your own submission against the Hate Speech proposals by going here and either emailing your views or filling out the online form. Public submissions close on August 6.
Proposal 1: Change the language in the incitement provisions so that they protect more groups that are targeted by hateful speech
Do you agree that broadening the incitement provisions in this way will better protect these groups?
No
Why or why not?:
We should all be equal under the law. This proposal seeks to only protect favoured minority groups. This proposal will not protect the majority of New Zealanders from exactly the same ‘offences.’
In your opinion, which groups should be protected by this change?
Groups:
Groups should not be protected as groups are not human so therefore cannot have human rights. Laws should protect individual humans regardless of which identity group they belong to. We should all be equal under the law. Protected victim groups are the opposite of equality under the law.
Do you think that there are any groups that experience hateful speech that would not be protected by this change?
Groups not protected:
YES! The majority of New Zealanders will not be protected by this law that plays favourites.
Proposal 2: Replace the existing criminal provision with a new criminal offence in the Crimes Act that is clearer and more effective
Do you agree that changing the wording of the criminal provision in this way will make it clearer and simpler to understand?
No
Why or why not?:
The law is adequate as it is. No change is needed. Incitement of murder or violence is already illegal. This proposed law is about hurtie feelings. It is wrong. No one should be protected from criticism or insults. Free Speech’s only limit is the incitement of physical harm. We should never legislate to protect feelings.
Do you think that this proposal would capture the types of behaviours that should be unlawful under the new offence?
No
Why or why not?:
This new law will make political cartoons, comedy, caricatures, political commentary and debate illegal. It will have a chilling effect on public discourse. It is totalitarian and completely wrong. Hitler would love this proposed law.
Proposal 3: Increase the punishment for the criminal offence to up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000 to better reflect its seriousness
Do you think that this penalty appropriately reflects the seriousness of the crime?
No
Why or why not?:
This is completely over the top and abusive. When did sticks and stones cease to be relevant? You should not have the power to put someone in jail for upsetting someone’s feelings or challenging their worldview or insulting them. This is a worse punishment than given to people who did physical harm. There should be NO jail time for speech that this goverment doesn’t approve of.
If you disagree, what crimes should be used as an appropriate comparison?
Proposal Three: If disagree what crimes should be used as comparison:
None. Free speech should remain free. Only totalitarian governments seek to restrict the public’s right to express their opinions.
Proposal 4: Change the language of the civil incitement provision to better match the changes being made to the criminal provision
Do you support changing this language in section 61?
No
Why or why not?:
The entire premise of hate speech is wrong. Only actions and incitement to physical harm should have jail time or fines attached. There is no need for this new blasphemy law.
Do you think that any other parts of the current wording of the civil provision should be changed?
No
Why or why not?:
The entire premise of hate speech is wrong. Only actions and incitement to physical harm should have jail time or fines attached. There is no need for this new blasphemy law.
Proposal 5: Change the civil provision so that it makes ‘incitement to discrimination’ against the law
Do you support including the prohibition of incitement to discriminate in section 61?
No
Why or why not?:
Discrimination is completely wrong yet this government supports what it calls positive discrimination. You cannot pass a law that will make the government’s own actions illegal. Government departments “incite discrimination” against non-Maori and non-Pasifika every day of the week. They have race-based quotas and force them on those who do contract work for the government as well.
You cannot morally punish others for discrimination when the government has embedded discrimination into its hiring practices. ALL discrimination is wrong. There is nothing positive about race-based quotas.
Proposal 6: Add to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to clarify that trans, gender diverse, and intersex people are protected from discrimination
Do you consider that this terminology is appropriate?
No
Why or why not?:
We should not protect groups as groups do not have human rights only humans have human rights. ONLY individuals should be protected and they should be protected equally.
Do you think that this proposal sufficiently covers the groups that should be protected from discrimination under the Human Rights Act?
No
Why or why not?:
The proposal is rotten at its core and should be thrown out.
Do you consider that this proposal appropriately protects culturally specific gender identities, including takat?pui?
No
Why or why not?:
The proposal is rotten at its core and should be thrown out.