Observe Labour’s New-Found Silence on Hate Speech Laws

By Olivia Pierson
First published on Insight@theBFD 13/02/20

[Author’s Edit: Since the writing of this piece, Andrew Little has broken his silence on the topic by confirming that the Labour government will announce changes to NZ’s hate speech legislation before the election.]
​

Has anyone else noticed how silent PM Ardern and Justice Minister Little have fallen over the much-touted “fast-track review of NZ’s current hate speech laws”?

There’s a reason for this: it’s an unpopular issue with NZ citizens and we happen to be in an election year.

NZ political commentator, Chris Trotter, spoke about this last week on the Leighton Smith Podcast. Trotter said:

“One of the very few things which could derail this government is Andrew Little persisting with his determination to replicate the laws of the United Kingdom on hate speech here in NZ... if he did that, if he’s allowed to do that... if it were to happen, if Labour and the Greens made that the ditch to die in… David Seymour would reap a very large harvest in votes.  He has put himself at the forefront of the free speech debate and I think libertarians across the country would move out of their lethargy and fight very vociferously any attempt to give us the sort of laws they have in the UK.”

Trotter obviously has a higher view of NZ Libertarians than I do; their lethargy happens to be their most essential feature.

But Trotter makes an excellent point about Labour.

If Little goes ahead because Labour wins a second term in this upcoming election he most certainly will rely heavily on the new model of hate speech provisions that the United Kingdom have adopted. 

What exactly have the UK adopted that our Labour government seeks to implement here?

The Crown Prosecutors Services (CPS) revised its guidelines to prosecutors as to what the definition of a “hate crime” is:

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.

This subjective perception law applies to “offences” committed online as well as face-to-face and doesn’t have to be reported by the “victim” but by any sticky-beak bystander who takes issue with it.

I have already written about the open persecution of Renaud Camus by these laws as they apply in France (and most of Europe), who received a fine and a prison sentence for criticising immigration. 

We know that Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron already have many silly, but abiding crusades in common, such as prioritising ongoing trade with the failing E.U (instead of America, the most powerful economy on Earth), the Paris Accord climate change hoax and the Christchurch Call initiative against online “violent extremist content.”  

We also now know that violent extremist content means the politically damned viewpoints of decent, honest intellectuals like Renaud Camus, rather than evil be-headers and murderers like ISIS, whose online hate-filled, violent magazine Dabiq is still available for free download in NZ (and probably France).

This is the Orwellian standard we all better get used to if Labour win a second term.  They’re only remaining silent about it because they know in an election year, this issue will not win them votes, but be warned NZ!  If Labour win, our free speech laws will be downgraded to those befitting a Banana Republic shithole.

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer"