We cannot forget that 51 Muslims died in the Christchurch shootings. Photo / Sam Sherwood
We cannot forget that 51 Muslims died in the Christchurch shootings. Photo / Sam Sherwood
OPINION
There has been extensive commentary on the coalition agreements of the new Government. However, one issue has escaped this close attention, despite being previously subject to intense public debate. It is reform of our hate speech laws or, more precisely, proposed changes to our laws on incitement to hostilityor ill-will.
The NZ First coalition agreement with National included the following undertaking: “Protect freedom of speech by ruling out the introduction of hate speech legislation and stop the Law Commission’s work on hate speech legislation.” The Law Commission was indeed working on proposals for change, but that will now cease.
The problem is that there was a worthy element within the proposal for a law change. That is now off the table. Unfortunately, people’s perceptions of hate speech reform were coloured by the strident positions that characterised the public debate. So it requires a little unpacking to bring into focus the worthy part.
The Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch a year after the terrorist attack. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The tragic Christchurch mosque attacks and the Royal Commission’s recommendations focused our attention on hate speech reform. Yet, the need for change existed well before that. In New Zealand, our Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits discrimination on grounds that include race, ethnic or national origin, religious belief, disability and sex or sexual orientation. However, that same Act prohibits incitement to hostility based only on colour, race, ethnic or national origin. It’s pretty obvious that people can be also subject to threatened hostility based on their religious belief, sexual orientation, or disability, and there’s no real justification for such a gap.
It’s contrary to our law to encourage violence against a particular ethnic group, but not if the target is Muslims or gay people. In Hoban v Attorney-General, the High Court considered a complaint against publication of a West Auckland pastor’s sermon calling for gay people to be shot. In 2022, the High Court dismissed that claim. While acknowledging sympathy for Mr Hoban’s complaint, the court noted rightly that the law’s scope is a matter for Parliament. The case was appealed and will be heard shortly in the Court of Appeal.
The Labour Government and its Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi took charge of responding to the Royal Commission’s recommendations on hate speech. The minister circulated proposals that included a level of restrictions, to criminalise offensive or insulting speech, unparalleled in any Western liberal democracy. The proposals were unjustified and unworkable. As such, the public reaction was swift and strong, with one petition against the changes obtaining more than 32,000 signatures.
To truly address the problem of hate speech is challenging and complex. The cure is not a criminal offence of insulting speech. Rather, it requires a serious, well thought-out and sustained policy effort, to get at the problem’s roots. This means education in schools and at home, building respect for pluralism and diversity, for each other and our diverse communities. This was reflected in the Royal Commission’s less publicised recommendations on social cohesion.
The next Minister of Justice Kiri Allan took the issue off the Government’s legislative agenda altogether, consistent with Labour’s so-called “policy bonfire”. The minister passed it off to the Law Commission to consider. Which brings us back to the Law Commission now ending its work on the topic.
Kiri Allan. Photo / Mark Mitchell
I campaigned for election to Parliament for Wellington Central with this as one issue that I personally wanted addressed. I’ve met with communities – Muslim and Rainbow – to which this issue mattered. I also want New Zealand to deliver on its international human rights commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
We cannot forget that 51 Muslims died in the Christchurch shootings. That said, our society now appears unwilling to put incitement to hostility based on religious belief on level footing with racially-motivated incitement. This is unfair on our Islamic community and disrespectful their loss. If the Labour Government had managed this issue properly, the necessary changes and protections could be on our statute books today.
Respect and inclusion are key to a harmonious society. Typically, New Zealanders have been pretty good at this. Many highly sought-after migrants, those who make a huge contribution to our country, traditionally came here not because we provided the best economic opportunities, but because of our inclusive society and values.
Unfortunately, based on what I’m hearing, that may no longer be the case. I hope that in future we can change this, for the sake of a better country and our future generations.
· Scott Sheeran is a barrister, human rights expert, and published academic. He has been counsel before the International Court of Justice in human rights cases, and was the vice-chair of the legal committee of the UN General Assembly. He ran for National in Wellington Central at the 2023 general election.
