My Submission to Government Re: Proposed Hate Speech Laws

The government’s discussion document is here.

Personal submissions from NZers can be submitted here until August 6th.

Have your say!

---

Over the last few years, I’ve already written a boat-load of articles covering the issue of Freedom of Speech.  Here’s a handful of those:

We Must Speak Freely - It's Holy Ground!

The Human Rights Commission & Free Speech

Rhetoric Doesn’t Kill People, Violence Does: New Zealand’s Anger, Sorrow & Worry

What Happened to Renaud Camus is Coming to NZ

Little Truth Does He Know

Satire Died a Quick Death in New Zealand

Kiwis Just Put Their Money Where Their Mouths Are

There is no Measure for Hate Speech

Criminalising Hate Speech - an Affront to Our Natural Liberties

Ardern Intent on Smashing Free Speech

Now that our government is asking for citizen submissions from New Zealanders to put forth their thoughts on the proposed hate speech laws, I thought I’d publish my submission to encourage other folks to make their own before August 6th.

---

Submitted to Incitement of Hatred and Discrimination in Aotearoa New Zealand Submitted on 2021-06-30 12:25:06

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?:

Hateful speech is not a crime and should remain not a crime.
Inciting violence, death or grievous bodily harm toward an individual or individuals is a crime and should remain a crime.

In your opinion, which groups should be protected by this change?
Groups:

None.

“Groups” is sloppy political rhetoric by those who advance collectivist groupthink. There is no such entity as a group, there are only individuals.
Legal individual rights and citizen protections apply to individuals.

Do you think that there are any groups that experience hateful speech that would not be protected by this change?
Groups not protected:

Indeed. All individual citizens who do not actively identify with a particular group, which is most of NZ.

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?:

No. The waters have already been muddied by Section 61 which encourages groupthink along the lines of race, colour and ethnicity.
All NZ citizens are individuals deserving of protections under the law concerning their physical safety, including their private property, no matter what race they are.

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?:

Nobody needs to be protected from verbal abuse or insulting speech by the law.
It is already a criminal offence to incite violence, death or grievous bodily harm toward any individual.

While nobody enjoys being insulted or verbally abused, it should not fall into the category of being a crime unless it meets the threshold of libel or defamation causing actual harm to a person’s good name or reputation.

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?:

It is utterly ridiculous to even consider sending people to prison or fining them for offending someone’s feelings. This is an abuse of state power.

If you disagree, what crimes should be used as an appropriate comparison?
Proposal Three: If disagree what crimes should be used as comparison:

Exercising the right to an expressed opinion should not be a crime unless it meets the high threshold of libel or defamation causing significant damage to a person’s reputation.

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?:

Hatred and contempt are feelings. No law, either civil or criminal, should be making legislation around people’s feelings. This is absurd on its face.

Do you think that any other parts of the current wording of the civil provision should be changed?

Yes

Why or why not?:

The Human Rights Act should not trump our Bill of Rights Article 14:
Freedom of Speech
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."

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?:

People should be free to judge/discriminate in their expressed opinions about anything or anyone without fear of the law. What matters is that all citizens are equally protected under the law when it comes to physical harm, injury or property. This new law will create crimes with no actual victims.
Hurt feelings are not a basis on which to create laws.

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?:

It’s utterly appalling to legislate around hurt feelings.

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?:

This proposal will do nothing except create totalitarian laws which discriminate against a citizen's right to freedom of expression and open debates. It is anti liberty, anti civilisation and anti human flourishing.
It will only create a seething underbelly of hatred toward our laws and towards those who write them and those who enforce them.
In short, this entire proposal will turn our democracy against itself by creating unprecedented divisions amongst its people.
It’s undemocratic.

Do you consider that this proposal appropriately protects culturally specific gender identities, including takat■pui? 
Not Answered
Why or why not?: