Following the release of the Ministry of Justice’s discussion document on reforming New Zealand’s hate speech laws, I’m pleasantly surprised to see discomfort at their threat to freedom of speech extends beyond libertarians. A Newshub straw poll on June 28 showed that 87% of participants opposed the proposed hate speech laws.
The impracticality of identifying hate speech and objectively enforcing its prohibition is clearly not lost on the average New Zealander. That in itself can be chalked up as a win. I don’t need to harangue people about the moral repercussions of the existing laws in the Human Rights Act, but if you’re interested, I will.
Proposal One: Change the language in the incitement provisions so that they protect more groups that are targeted by hateful speech
The incitement provisions under the current law only apply to a group because of their “colour, race or ethnic origins”. The Human Rights Act incitement provisions and the groups protected from discrimination cause confusion (which I’ve experienced while writing this) because they’re different.
I have no issue with incitement to violence or the threat of violence being illegal under the current law. Violence can and should be defined as theft, fraud, genocide, suicide, murder and assault etc. Freedom of speech currently doesn’t allow for incitement to violence and it shouldn’t. I would argue that there should be no groups identified specifically as being protected from incitement to violence.
Proposal Two: Replace the existing criminal provision with a new criminal offence in the Crimes Act that is clearer and more effective
Section 131 of the Human Rights Act forbids inciting “hostility or ill-will” against others on the grounds of nationality, colour, race or ethnic group. The new proposals would replace those terms with “hatred”. The current debate has covered the difficulty in determining when hatred has been incited and I’m not going to cover that here.
Proposal Five: Change the civil provision so it makes “incitement to discrimination” against the law
Under Section 61 of the Human Rights Act, it is illegal to discriminate. This proposal will make it illegal to discriminate and incite discrimination. I do not think it should be illegal to discriminate and therefore oppose banning incitement to discriminate. Therefore I am also opposed to Proposal Six.
Proposal Six: Add to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to clarify that trans, gender diverse and intersex people are protected from discrimination.
Proposals five and six will criminalise the discrimination and incitement to discriminate against groups on the grounds of
- Sex
- Pregnancy
- Marital status
- Religious belief
- Ethical belief
- Colour
- Race
- Ethnic or national origins which includes nationality or citizenship
- Disability
- Age over 16 years
- Political opinion
- Employment status
- Family status
- Sexual orientation
- Gender identity
Discrimination is a normal activity each of us engage in multiple times daily. I discriminate against the oranges when I buy bananas, against YouTube when I watch Netflix and against starving children when I donate to the RSPCA. Why is discrimination wrong and why does it only apply to groups?
Regardless of how the law views me, I view myself as an individual not a group. I’m already a second-class citizen under this proposal and potentially the only person in New Zealand with no protection from discrimination. Banning discrimination also doesn’t prevent discrimination occuring; people just lie about it. I guess incitement to discriminate can’t be lied about. Putting that aside, there are many groups that are routinely discriminated against on this list and the current law is riddled with exceptions permitting discrimination.
The view of the Prime Minister is that political opinion should not be included as prohibited grounds for incitement of hatred or driscrimination under the law but she wants to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. Why is religious belief any different from political belief?
Religion is an opinion. A stupid opinion. I’ll give Marxists some credit; the ideology of their namesake definitely existed in the 1800s and he probably wrote the Communist Manifesto. The same cannot be said for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. Most religious opinions include some seriously horrible views. All the Abrahamic religions are openly hostile to homosexuals and dictate some nasty consequences for homosexuality. They aren’t the only homophobic religions but they’re the ones I am familiar with. Why should it be illegal to publicly condemn or discriminate against those who hold those opinions?
Religious apologists often counter by saying not all religious people hold those beliefs. The majority of them are moderates. To be frank I’d have more respect for religious opinion if it were of the extreme variety. Who the hell are these moderates to think they can regulate and censor the words of their God. You don’t get to cherry pick the parts you like and ignore the parts you don’t.
I generally disapprove of racial discrimination though will concede I find some races more physically attractive than others, just as I find some body shapes and an entire sex more attractive than others. This government wouldn’t recommend that it is illegal to reject a sexual partner on the grounds of ethnicity. Should racial discrimination be legal for other reasons? Yes, whether I agree with it or not.
I am not entitled to buy or obligated to sell goods to another person. I don’t have the right to your friendship nor must I be yours. The wages paid by an employer should be paid to a person they want to work with and a shared living situation is only reasonable and desirable when all parties agree.
I think racial discrimination is deplorable which is why it should be legalised and the incitement of discrimination not criminalised. If someone is racist or homophobic, then they’re the last people who should be legally prevented from lying about it because I want nothing to do with those people and I certainly wouldn’t engage in a financial transaction with them. If the Christian baker didn’t want to bake my wedding cake I’d like to know so I don’t pay the jerk hundreds of dollars.
The state should not have the power to discriminate in this manner because the role of the state is to protect the liberty of the individual. It can’t plunder our wallets and discriminate with the proceeds. It is ironic that leftist and ethno-nationalist politicians are so enthusiastic about passing this law change when the Maori Party depends on discrimination and the incitement of discrimination to fund its campaign promises.
Anti-discrimination legislation should be described correctly as compelled association laws because they violate freedom of association and desecrate the sanctity of private property. Therefore hate speech legislation isn’t only impractical, it is immoral. Let people live honestly, express themselves honestly and be commended or condemned accordingly.