On rewriting the definition of hate speech

Clive Bibby

Opinion

During one of the rare occasions l was home in time to watch the lunch-time news, l was intrigued to note the main headline for the day being a call to update legislation governing the crime of hate speech.

Perhaps because l am somewhat sceptical of laws that are based on defending the rights of selected minority groups while turning a blind eye to the common abuse suffered by mainstream, majority citizens, l was not surprised to hear the call was for an expansion of those minority groups currently not included but, nonetheless, supposedly under threat from hate speech being levelled at them as well.

All well and good for those groups who would benefit from this magnanimous gesture from the highly paid experts who claim to have identified the groups exposed to such beastly verbal abuse.

Most Kiwis would agree that the legislation governing hate speech should be updated from time to time. But few would agree that, even with the proposed changes, the new wording actually covers all groups who might be considered at risk.

So, in order to add a few of my own choices that warrant inclusion, l have researched the exact text in the current legislation that provides the definition of what constitutes hate speech.

It reads as follows: “being matter or words likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any such group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race or ethnic or national origin of that group or persons”.

My concern about the current wording is that even with the proposed changes to include a number of other “at risk” groups, the one glaring example of those who are deliberately omitted is the one that includes the greatest number of people suffering hate speech on a daily basis in this country.

It is the group labelled as “stale, pale males” who are regularly accused of being “racist”, often by those most commonly defended by the law itself.

It should make no difference to my pointing out the inconsistency of the law or who it aims to protect, or the fact that those of us who suffer these insults accept it as something that goes with the territory. The need for change is clear.

My beef is that all persons indulging in this offensive practice should be accountable under the law.

As long as Māori activists or other people of colour choose to defend their own intemperate outbursts by the repeated use of hate speech themselves, simply because they can without falling foul of the law, then they will continue to do so.

My suggestion is that if the legislation is applied equally to all, and is an effective deterrent to the above type of activity, then the public discourse will be better for it.

Let’s do it.