by Roger Childs
The mid-March massacre in Christchurch was tragic, but it should not be used to restrict civil liberties. Following it, the majority of New Zealanders agreed with banning private machine guns and similar weapons, but wading into the murky swamp of “hate speech” with a view to tightening freedom of speech regulations is very dangerous.
The Mainstream Media has made a fuss about a leaflet drop in Auckland by a group known as “One Law”. Basically the pamphlets were promoting the concept of equality, and challenging the view that part-Maori should get special treatment as regards representation, tax laws and government assistance.
The opponents of the pamphlet are upset about some of the claims made on the sheet and in the book One Treaty, One Nation that it was promoting. The Minister responsible for looking at tightening “hate speech” laws, Andrew Little, made the extraordinary statement: “It peddles myths about pre-European Maori society that historical scholarship does not bear out. If it demonstrates anything, it is that the author of it is an ignorant fool.” He quoted no sources for his conclusions. [The book actually has 8 authors. In the Herald on Sunday yesterday, Andrew Little said that it is “racist” and is the type of thing he will be looking at to suppress under his new “hate speech” laws. —Eds]
One Treaty, One Nation is available from the Paraparaumu Library or can be bought online from Tross Publishing.
There is concern worldwide about challenges to free speech. In the U.S., the Trump Administration from the start made noises about limiting the freedom of media outlets it doesn’t like and is concerned that a pro-Trump paper The National Enquirer may fall into the hands of a Democrat supporter!
The forcible arrest of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, in London is also a concern. (See the earlier articles on Waikanae Watch). It seems that there may well have been pressure by the U.S. on Ecuador to allow the London bobbies to haul Assange away. As journalist Nozomi Hayase, puts it: Assange’s arrest and possible extradition to the U.S. is much bigger than an individual issue. This goes right to the heart of freedom of expression, basic human rights and due process.
There is a need for vigilance. Sadly, the excellent Tasmanian Times, probably Australia’s best outlet for accurate reporting, is likely to close soon. Fortunately, in the U.S. the daily online Democracy Now! continues to provide un-muzzled news reporting. Track it down if you don’t know it.
Rest assured that Waikanae Watch will continue to fly the flag of free speech!
Sundry advocates of ‘hate speech’ laws have made assurances that it would not be used to stifle legitimate debate, but rather inflammatory language that is in no one’s interests. Now according to Andrew Little such a law would indeed be used to stifle intelligent debate including apparently research and scholarship. The basis of scholarship is the establishing of a dialectic, otherwise one ends up with dogma, and for a dialectic more than one side is required. That one side is likely to be wrong or at least of lesser accuracy than another is what a dialectic is intended to show through empirical methods.
I have recently read an article by a veteran journalist and author stating that in regard to the recent scandal in Australia, ‘the Catholic church should be excommunicated from civilized society’. There was also a recent media article using the most tenuous hogwash to try and associate a group in Christchurch that follows the Norse religion with Tarrant, on the basis that Tarrant used runes and referred to Valhalla; the article proceeded to slander old Norse these religious beliefs.
Are these two recent articles examples of ‘hate speech’ that could be prosecuted? Probably not. Like the race relations and human rights acts , such a law will be applied with much bias.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
― United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights If this is taken from us, then we are no longer a democracy.