Editorial: We need no law to define ‘hate’ speech

Is there no end to political correctness? Yes, fortunately, there is. An overwhelming majority of submissions to a parliamentary select committee in Auckland this week told the MPs that a law against "hate speech" would be a step too far.

There is of course already a law against expressions which may incite racial disharmony. Those who sought a law against so-called "hate speech" wanted the same sort of protection to apply to religion, gender and sexual orientation.

Church leaders were among those who urged the select committee to drop the idea, gender defenders did not feature in the discussion. Among the few to appear in support of the proposal were the Aids Foundation and the Islamic Women's Council.

The suggestion apparently had its genesis in the Film and Literature Board of Review when it learned from the Court of Appeal that no grounds existed in law for the board to rule as objectionable two Christian videotapes expressing disapproval of homosexuality.

Defenders of freedom of speech nearly always find themselves on the side of attitudes they do not share. It is possible to take a sympathetic view of homosexuality yet defend the right of others to express disapproval of it, just as one can practise a religion yet defend the right of others to condemn it.

It comes from the belief that the right of people to speak their mind is an elemental human right that should not be limited except where it directly threatens harm to others.

The Human Rights Act 1993 declares it an offence to publish, broadcast or utter in a public place material that is "threatening, abusive or insulting" and "likely to excite hostility against, or bring into contempt" any group on the grounds of colour, race or ethnic or national origin.

Those phrases fall a long way short of direct physical harm to racial groups, and those seeking a wider prohibition of hate speech are entitled to ask why it should not be equally unlawful to speak about homosexuals or a religious group in a manner that is "abusive or insulting" and likely to "bring them into contempt".

It is difficult to find a distinction in principle. But ethnic protection goes too far. Strictly applied, the foregoing phrases forbid anyone speaking unkindly of Australians.

When the Human Rights Act was updated in 1993, the question was already being asked: is there an end to political correctness?

Now at least excessive speech-control is not to be applied more widely. The committee chairwoman, Dianne Yates, declared after just one day of hearings that the exercise was "a little luxury". There was no policy and no bill before the committee. It supposedly took it upon itself to test the water.

The Government will be supremely grateful to see the committee drop the exercise, especially in election year. The relief in the Beehive is evident in a letter from Justice Minister Phil Goff to the Herald complaining that our report gave an impression it was a Government proposal to ban hate speech. It is open to anyone to suspect this inquiry could not have started without at least the tacit consent of the leadership of Parliament's largest party. It is hardly a cause the Opposition would have led.

Hate speech is hard to define but easy to identify. Most of us recognise it when we hear it. We need no law to despise it.