# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vUdWpwLv10

# data[].attributes.headline
A Story of Hate Speech Abuse - London Councillor - Youngest Elected Women of Colour

# data[].attributes.subject
A Story of Hate Speech Abuse - London Councillor - Youngest Elected Women of Colour

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ted.com/talks/seyi_akiwowo_how_to_fix_the_glitch_in_our_online_communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seyi Akiwowo: How to fix the glitch in our online communities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After becoming the youngest, black female Councillor in East London, an impromptu speech Seyi gave at the European Parliament went viral. Months later she battled through horrific online abuse, including death threats.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hate Speech - Where is the 'Line' - NZ Examples - What Do You Think?

# data[].attributes.subject
Hate Speech - Where is the 'Line' - NZ Examples - What Do You Think?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/shouting-abuse-outside-mosque-racist-pamphlet-and-israel-folau-s-comments-hate-speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shouting abuse outside a mosque, a "racist" pamphlet and Israel Folau's recents comments - in light of recent examples, the term "hate speech" is still left undefined.

In the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attack, Justice Minister Andrew Little announced his intention to review hate speech laws, but in the meantime New Zealanders have not held back calling out objectionable utterances.

Barrister and legal commentator Graeme Edgeler explained the differences between three cases - a man shouting abuse outside a mosque, a "racist" pamphlet being dropped in Auckland mailboxes, and rugby player Israel Folau's controversial Instagram posts attacking homosexuals and others.

Mr Edgeler described all three of the examples as "broadly problematic", but the only one which could legally qualify as hate speech would be the man shouting hateful messages to Muslims outside the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch last Wednesday.

"The type of speech that can really interfere with your ability to function in society, if someone is yelling quite fowl abuse at you outside your mosque ... that would be the sort of problem that that's what we try to avoid.

"People can say things but when they start affecting people's lives, that's the sort of thing that the law sometimes steps in and says "no it's not okay"," Mr Edgeler told TVNZ1's Breakfast.

However, the pamphlet could be a breach of advertising standards, and Folau's comments were an employment issue rather than something he could be criminally charged with, he said.

Mr Edgeler understood there was a complaint before the Advertising Standards Authority at the moment regarding the pamphlet, which he said was the appropriate action.

The group One Law for All sent out the pamphlets in Auckland's Point Chevalier, states that colonisation was good overall for Māori and that there is no such thing as a Treaty partnership. They call for the Waitangi Tribunal, Māori voting roll and Māori wards to be abolished.

If the ruling by the commission was that the pamphlet was okay, then the standards might need to be looked at, Mr Edgeler said, but "the idea that this is hate speech is probably going a bit far".

As for Folau, New Zealand laws are not able to stop anyone in Australia doing anything, but there might be employment law consequences for his posts, Mr Edgeler said.

The Wallabies player said on his Instagram account last week that "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters" have hell awaiting them unless they repent.

"That particular post though, mostly it was quotes from the bible and, sort of, a paraphrase of another quote from the bible," Mr Edgeler said. "We might strengthen our hate speech laws [but] I would be surprised if any changes we did make were such that it would be hate speech, criminal or civil hate speech, to stop people quoting the bible."

But people don't have to tolerate offensive speech, they can call him out, and many people had, he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shouting abuse outside a mosque, 'racist' pamphlet and Israel Folau's comments - what is hate speech?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shouting abuse outside a mosque, a "racist" pamphlet and Israel Folau's recents comments - in light of recent examples, the term "hate speech" is still left undefined. In the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attack, Justice Minister Andrew Little announced his intention to review hate speech laws, but in the meantime New Zealanders have not held back calling out objectionable utterances.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12030476

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a one-eyed All Black fan and rugby tragic, I don't generally like Australian Rugby players.

It's not personal. In fact I'm sure many of them are decent people. David Pocock stands out as an exception, not so much for his on the ground work at the breakdown but his outspoken stands on same sex marriage and environmental issues in Australia.

I've also really admired Israel Folau as a player; a fullback that plays the game like an All Black (that most egocentric Kiwi compliment) and a naturally gifted, multi-code athlete.

For such a modern player, though, it's a shame his views belong in the 1950s.

Earlier this week, Folau, known as a devout Christian, tweeted that gay people were destined for hell "unless they repent of their sins and turn to God".

Predictably - and appropriately - many were outraged. However a subsequent "conversation" with the Australian Rugby Union has lead the ARU to back Folau's right to his views, framing it as a matter of free speech.

It isn't: it's hate speech.

Look at it this way: if he'd spoken out about Aboriginal Australians, framed their spiritual views as heresy, and exclaimed that they would all go to hell unless they repented and converted to Christianity, would we still be having the same conversation?

Free speech isn't a get out of jail free card to say harmful things. Even less so if you're a role model, as international sportsmen are. It doesn't mean he can't hold those views - he can think what ever he likes - but expressing them in ways that can lead to harm is the very definition of hate speech, and he should be censured, not encouraged.

At the root of the problem, of course, is the acceptance by some that being "against" homosexuality is still a reasonable view.

And if you're wondering what harm such views can do, look no further than the disproportionally high suicide, self harm and mental health rates of young LGBTI people.

READ MORE: * Rainbow suicide rates five times higher than mainstream

Imagine yourself a young gay man who loves rugby, is struggling to come out and come to terms with your sexuality and then hearing one of your idols proclaim your very existence is an offence to his God.

Because underlying this abhorrent and ignorant view is the dangerous idea that sexuality is somehow a choice. When we understand that it isn't, we see that to attack someone's sexual orientation is to attack the whole person: it is the same as attacking their gender, their skin colour or their culture.

As a regular attendee of All Blacks versus Wallabies games at Eden Park, I'm not ashamed to say I've given Quade Cooper a fair raspberry along with everyone else, and that was just for having the temerity to high tackle Richie once. Although being a Kiwi playing for the Wallabies didn't help.

So, I wonder what kind of reception Folau will get this year? Should we boo him, or as someone suggested to me on Twitter perhaps we should shed the usual black garb and make Eden Park a rainbow test. I like this, because meeting hate with love - not more hate - seems like a good idea. Even in a Bledisloe game.

WHERE TO GET HELP:

If you are worried about your or someone else's mental health, the best place to get help is your GP or local mental health provider. However, if you or someone else is in danger or endangering others, call 111.

If you need to talk to someone, the following free helplines operate 24/7:

DEPRESSION HELPLINE: 0800 111 757
LIFELINE: 0800 543 354
NEED TO TALK? Call or text 1737
SAMARITANS: 0800 726 666
YOUTHLINE: 0800 376 633 or text 234

There are lots of places to get support. For others, click here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kyle MacDonald: Why Israel Folau's gay comment is hate speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a one-eyed All Black fan and rugby tragic, I don't generally like Australian Rugby players. It's not personal. In fact I'm sure many of them are decent people. David Pocock stands out as an exception, not so much for his on the ground work at the breakdown but his outspoken stands on same sex marriage and environmental issues in Australia.

# data[].attributes.headline
Calling Out Israel Folau - Hate Speech or Free Speech? What Do You Think?

# data[].attributes.subject
Calling Out Israel Folau - Hate Speech or Free Speech? What Do You Think?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9XD2wyHzLM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Israel Folau: Free speech vs Hate Speech

# data[].attributes.headline
RNZ Podcast - Discussion on Boundaries and Censorship and Forthcoming Legislation

# data[].attributes.subject
RNZ Podcast - Discussion on Boundaries and Censorship and Forthcoming Legislation

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight/audio/2018734855/free-speech-vs-hate-speech-the-government-s-dilemma

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Insight: New Zealand's hate speech laws could be changing. The potential shake-up has fired up free speech crusaders, who say the sacred right to freedom of expression is under threat. But minority communities say legislative change is needed to counter growing hate speech. For Insight, Katie Scotcher investigates.

Aych McArdle huddles with two friends in a crowded hallway. There's little room to move. Those two friends - a married couple - are arguing. The tension between the couple is bubbling, and as they shout at each other in the hallway, one of them loses it. She swings a punch at her wife and the crowd of people, packed like sardines, quickly thins out. Aych throws their body between the two like a human shield. In between swings, one of them pulls Aych away, throws them to the ground and in her anger shouts, "You he-she-it thing, I don't even know what you are. What's going on with your gender?"

Aych is gender diverse and uses they/them pronouns. Aych believes, at that moment, the only thing their friend felt they could say to hurt them was hate speech. "I don't know if they thought it would make me invisible or dissolve me into nothingness," Aych says.

It's not Aych's only experience of hate speech. Aych says they're often subjected to slurs and put downs online, and even walking down the street. But under New Zealand's current laws, Aych is unable to make a specific hate speech complaint to the police or Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Act states it is only an offence to use speech that will "excite hostility" or "bring into contempt" a person or group on the grounds of their colour, race or ethnicity. Gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability aren't protected grounds.

In the digital world, the Harmful Digital Communications Act is a relatively recent law and unlike the Human Rights Act, it does protect people on the grounds of colour, race and ethnicity, as well as religion, gender, sexual orientation and disability.

The shootings at two mosques in Christchurch last year brought this gap to the attention of Justice Minister Andrew Little, who subsequently ordered a review of the country's hate speech laws. He says he has received copious correspondence from people describing their experiences with hate speech in the wake of the attacks, which raised the question whether the current laws effectively protect minority communities.

President of the Federation of Islamic Associations, Mustafa Farouk, was among those who expressed concern over the current laws. He believes hate speech is on the rise.

"We have politicians who ... say whatever they want to say, they ride on hatred, they ride on racism ... and bigotry and yet, they find themselves in power and people think that is right and they get away with it," he says.

"That's why I think it is important we have a level of control on free speech."

He says it's going to take more than legislative changes to combat hate speech.

"I think the changes have to come both from law and education, and where we need to start is from our schools, from our kindergartens, our primary schools, high schools and universities.

"We need to encourage the learnings and teachings of togetherness."

The Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission are still reviewing the law. The agencies have so far consulted more than 120 people from different communities across the country.

Andrew Little has been given a preliminary report with suggestions based on those meetings. He wouldn't say if the law will change to protect the minority groups that are currently excluded.

The two agencies are now speaking to academics about where the line on free speech is drawn. Little will be presented with another report at the end of that consultation.

"The developments ... in the opportunities people have for expressing their views over the last ten years means that we need to make sure that the law properly reflects the harm that is currently being done without compromising those basic human rights of freedom of speech."

National Party leader Simon Bridges has previously expressed support for the government's review of hate speech laws, but urged it to be cautious about crossing the line and restricting free speech.

Meanwhile, ACT Party leader David Seymour strongly opposes a law change and says he fears the government plans to restrict the right to freely express. Last year, his party revealed a suite of policies that include repealing existing hate speech laws, abolishing the Human Rights Commission and cutting funding to universities that limit free speech.

The stacks of research on the far right and hate speech, kept neatly in faded manila folders, are so tall they tower over Professor Paul Spoonley at his Massey University office.

Spoonley has been researching these areas for decades and says hate speech laws should be widened to protect minority communities currently excluded from the legislation. But he thinks the threshold of what constitutes hate speech and what doesn't must remain high.

Spoonley believes hate speech is on the rise here. But he says it's impossible to measure the scale of hate speech in New Zealand because no one is keeping track.

"Most countries around the world ... all have agencies which collect data on hate speech and make that publicly available so people, whether they're in the government or in communities, know the extent of the current evidence concerning hate speech in that country."

The police don't record the number of crimes motivated by hatred. They declined to be interviewed but said in a statement they are "working actively" to better record hate crimes. It's not clear how or when changes will be made.

The Human Rights Commission receives complaints of unlawful discrimination and racial disharmony, but their statistics don't cover hate crime in general terms. The commission received more than 1600 complaints of "unfavorable treatment" because of race, color or nationality between 2013 and 2018. In that same time window, just under 600 complaints of racial disharmony or harassment, which are considered to be more serious, were made.

However, there is some idea of the scale of hate speech being spread online in New Zealand. Netsafe last year released its second report into the matter, which showed the number of adults who have been targeted with hate speech online increased by 4 percent in the last 12 months. More than a third of people's experiences of online hate speech occurred in the two months after the Christchurch mosque attacks and Muslims, Hindus, people with disabilities and members of the rainbow community were targeted at higher rates.

The role that universities play in protecting free speech and academic freedom has also come under increasing scrutiny. By law, universities are expected to be a critic and conscience of society, but there's growing unease, with many questioning where the line of academic freedom should be drawn to protect students from hate speech.

That came to a head when Massey University's Vice Chancellor banned Don Brash from speaking at its Palmerston North campus in 2018. Dr Jan Thomas ordered the Politics Society event to be cancelled for security reasons, but emails later obtained under the Official Information Act showed Thomas didn't want the university seen to be endorsing racist behaviour.

The following year, Speak Up for Women, a group that has been criticised for transphobic messaging such as denying trans identities, planned its Feminism 2020 event at Massey's Wellington campus. The group's spokesperson, Ani O'Brien, assumed they wouldn't have any trouble holding an event on campus after the backlash Massey faced for banning the Brash talk. But after a petition was signed by more than 6000 people, the university again barred the group, an experience Ani describes as suffocating.

"I definitely felt at that point a bit hopeless. I kinda thought we were going to end up with a megaphone in a field or something, and we would've done that if we had to," she says.

Ani believes universities are the right place to express points-of-view that not everyone agrees with.

"Their role is in legislation to be a critic and conscience of society and we can't go on like this, because not only will we be depriving a whole generation of students of getting a vast, challenging education, it also has a knock-on effect on society," she says.

As a member of the rainbow community, Aych McArdle was concerned about the impact the group's view was having on the trans community. Aych says everyone is entitled to their own views, but questions whether sharing them in such a public way is the right thing to do.

"That group's speech was causing great harm to a community that has no social, cultural or legal protections in Aotearoa. The people who were speaking and wanting to speak on broader and broader platforms were protected from non-discrimination laws," Aych says.

"I saw a great imbalance of power in terms of those people saying what they want at the expense of an incredibly vulnerable and marginalised part of our community."

Aych says insults like "he-she-it thing" aren't rare. Yet in that hallway, after falling to the ground and being put down, Aych got back up, and again tried to prevent their friends from hurting each other. Ultimately, Aych believes the best of people.

Nevertheless, sometimes people need some guidance. "Hate speech comes up in lots of spaces," Aych says.

"It's not just extreme levels of violence ... it's in the words we speak that don't have good intentions towards people in our communities with less power, less agency."

It will be some time before the government reveals the outcome of its review of hate speech laws. Andrew Little had hoped to present any proposed changes by the end of last year, but says they will now be revealed ahead of this year's general election.
Follow Insight on Twitter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The thin line separating free speech and hate speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aych McArdle huddles with two friends in a crowded hallway. There's little room to move. Those two friends - a married couple - are arguing. The tension between the couple is bubbling, and as they shout at each other in the hallway, one of them loses it.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiKgECrvmBo

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12221767

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A pamphlet that references Don Brash has been labelled racist by Justice Minister Andrew Little, who wants the current review of hate speech laws to examine whether better avenues of complaint are needed.

The Advertising Standards Authority confirmed it is considering a complaint by Pt Chevalier resident Emma Vere-Jones about the pamphlet which she believes denigrates Māori.

Vere-Jones, who felt the timing of the mailbox drop soon after the Christchurch terrorist attacks was deliberate, told the Herald she had struggled to find where to complain.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's empathetic response made news around the world.

Justice Minister Andrew Little. Photo / Stuart Munro

"It did feel like they were thinking that if there were some people who thought that had been over the top that now may be a good time to garner that support," Vere-Jones said.

The Human Rights Commission's criteria didn't seem to fit so she complained to the ASA because the pamphlet promotes and seeks donations for a campaign named Rolling Thunder.

"The concern for me is that if there is no one to complain to, does that mean it is okay for people to put that sort of thing in my letterbox. I don't think it is. There needs to be some sort of recourse."

The pamphlet titled One Treaty One Nation, calls for an end to state partnership with Māori, scrapping the Waitangi Tribunal, Māori electorates and wards and says Māori have benefited from colonisation lifting them out of "a violent stone age existence".

Andrew Little who is overseeing a review of hate speech in the wake of the terrorist attacks told the Herald his view was the pamphlet is racist.

"It peddles myths about pre-European Maori society that historical scholarship does not bear out. If it demonstrates anything, it is that the author of it is an ignorant fool."

The pamphlet promotes a book, 'One Treaty, One Nation' co-authored by Don Brash.

Little said it was a matter the Human Rights Commission would be interested in.

"They are the right body to consider whether it is racist and, if so, whether it is sufficiently harmful to attract any sanction."

But the HRC said its governing Act was limited.

While it could accept complaints about publications or written matters that are threatening, abusive or insulting and were likely to excite hostility or ridicule of individuals or groups it had no power to make decisions about whether they broke the law.

It could offer mediation and if unresolved a complainant could take it to the independent Human Rights Review Tribunal which could decide whether it breached the Human Rights Act.

The HRC would not confirm whether it had received a complaint about the pamphlet, but said the ASA and the Office of Film and Literature Classification, are potential options for raising concerns.

Little said it needed to be clear where people could take complaints. "One of the things I want to see out of the review of our hate speech laws is whether the avenues open to members of the public to complain about hate speech are accessible enough."

The Human Rights Act is to be reviewed later in the year.

Vere-Jones doubted the pamphlet should be allowed as free speech because it included material that was "inaccurate" and its claim to promote equality was "disingenuous".

"It misses the point that indigenous people in countries that have been colonised absolutely don't fare well. It is not a level playing field."

"I felt pretty annoyed about it. And if it riles me as someone who is Pakeha, then how does it feel if you are Maori ... and that arrives through their letter box."

Attempts by the Herald to contact the group that sent out the pamphlets, One Law for All, were unsuccessful.

Radio New Zealand reported that a person from the group said they sent the pamphlets out to utilise stock and it was unrelated to Christchurch.

The pamphlet promotes a book, 'One Treaty, One Nation' co-authored by Don Brash.

The pamphlet promotes a book, One Treaty, One Nation co-authored by Don Brash, a former National Party leader and Reserve Bank governor who launched the Hobson's Pledge Trust campaign calling for an end to race-based laws.

Brash told the Herald he didn't know the pamphlet was being distributed again.

"I wrote a chapter in the book it refers to but I don't know who is distributing [the pamphlet] and I am surprised it is being distributed now because the book came out two or three years ago."

Brash said he vaguely recalled the pamphlet but not the detail. "I had no involvement in the recent distribution at all but the idea that the book is relevant to Christchurch is patent nonsense."

When the same pamphlet was distributed two years ago in Peter Dunne's Ohariu electorate, the now retired MP, derided them as "disgraceful, despicable, racist bigotry".

There is a gap in the law, the former United First politician said this week.

"We don't have a public decency tribunal in that sense. I think there is a real gap where offensive material can be put out there with no safeguard."

"I think the timing of this is obnoxious frankly. It is obnoxious anyway but, right now, it is clearly designed to inflame some tensions that are there and I think the organisers have to accept some liability for that."

Pamphlet 'incites negative attitudes towards Māori'

Vere-Jones told the ASA the tone of the pamphlet is designed to incite negative attitudes towards Māori using misinformation and out of context statements.

Here are some edited examples she provided the ASA.

"The phrase Stone Age is inflammatory, and tries to give the picture of a race who are stupid and uneducated. It is clearly inaccurate to compare the culture of Māori in NZ in the 1800s with stone age people."

Claim: that colonisation and the Treaty of Waitangi lifted Māori out of slavery.

Omits that slavery was continued by Europeans long after it was practised by Māori, therefore the pamphlet is singling one population out on the basis of race.

Claim: that inter-tribal wars killed a third of the population in the previous 20 years.

While presented as fact, it is questionable. Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand states that "from 1810 to 1840 there were, each year, around 4000 deaths from illness and other 'normal' causes, while warfare caused perhaps 700 deaths".

Claim: With Western medicine Maori life expectancy has risen from 20 to 25 years (1840) to 75 years today.

Te Ara says that Māori life expectancy at the time of Captain James Cook's visits to New Zealand (between 1769 and 1777) was similar to that in some of the most privileged 18th-century societies. Māori may have had a life expectancy at birth of about 30 but there was a major decline in Māori life expectancy after European contact.

Introduced diseases and loss of land were factors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti-Māori pamphlet shows gaps in hate speech law: Andrew Little calls for action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A pamphlet that references Don Brash has been labelled racist by Justice Minister Andrew Little, who wants the current review of hate speech laws to examine whether better avenues of complaint are needed. The Advertising Standards Authority confirmed it is considering a complaint by Pt Chevalier resident Emma Vere-Jones about the pamphlet which she believes denigrates Māori.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legislation to Protect New Zealanders from Hate Speech

# data[].attributes.subject
Legislation to Protect New Zealanders from Hate Speech

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/120264595/justice-minister-forges-ahead-with-hate-speech-laws-for-new-zealand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Proposed hate speech laws for New Zealand are imminent.

Justice Minister Andrew Little told Stuff the Government is bringing forward changes around hate speech, but shaping a law had taken time.

A number of options were now "working their way through" the cabinet process, he said.

"The review of our hate speech laws are in the final stages. I expect there will be an announcement in a matter of weeks."

Little announced he would be considering making hate crime an offence in the wake of the March 15 Christchurch terror attack last year.

At the time, Little said the laws that dealt with hate speech were "woefully inadequate" and fast-tracked a widespread review of New Zealand's existing legislation.

This included deciding whether hate crime should be established as its own separate offence, as it is in the United Kingdom.

This month police revealed they were already "working actively" to better track crimes motivated by hatred, but details about how or when changes would take place remain unclear.

The Ministry of Justice has looked at relevant aspects of the Human Rights Act, the Harmful Digital Communications Act, and sections of the Crimes Act to see what laws needed to be changed or added.

It also consulted with affected communities and reported back to Little before Christmas, with the expectation that an announcement would be made shortly after.

Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite said hate speech was a "tricky thing" to navigate.

The Human Rights Commission had led some of the work with the ministry as they wanted some of the conversation to happen away from the political fray, given it could easily be derailed with so many strongly held views, he said.

"In reality you want to have a conversation with New Zealanders about what is the right balance between the Government politicians and officials. We want society to have a conversation about this and avoidprotests. You've got to think quite deeply and thoughtfully about it."

He believed change would need to be a slow process.

"I think you've got to think about how you shift the hearts and minds of New Zealanders and that will happen in a lot of different ways."

Legislation around hate speech that works for New Zealanders was absolutely important to people's wellbeing, he said.

"It helps shape that there is no room for racism, and other sorts of behaviours that might cause people to feel dislocated and feel separated from society."

The Human Rights Commission has also briefed Little and facilitated a series of community conversations withgroups of people who may have experienced, or been at risk of experiencing, harmful speech.

A spokeswoman for the commission said those conversations were for the purpose of helping inform the Ministry's policy work.

"We have also provided information to the Ministry about our complaints processes and statistics."

In December, the commission published Kōrero Whakamauāhara - an overview of the legal framework on hate speech laws that included definitions of hate speech and the different legal approaches to hate speech in New Zealand and internationally.

It highlighted several recent examples of the tension between freedom of speech and regulation against hate speech.

The document showed there was some inconsistency in New Zealand's current hate speech laws, she said.

The Human Rights Act 1993 provides protection from hate speech directed at race, colour, ethnic or national origins - but sexual orientation, age, disability, religious belief and many more human characteristics are not included.

In contrast, the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 provides protection across a broader range of characteristics and has a different legal test. However, this legislation only applies to online hate speech.

The Minister would determine what would happen next and what, if any, changes might be proposed to the current legal framework, she said.

"The commission will continue to encourage ongoing, respectful public discussion and debate about the law in this area and believe that it is important to consult widely and hear a range of views about whether our existing laws strike the correct balance between freedom of expression and the right of people living in New Zealand to be safe and free from discrimination."

Following its release, the Justice Select Committee asked the commission whether it planned to recommend any changes to the law.

The commission said it was alert to the issues, and was engaging broadly with the community and conducting independent research in order to take a position.

A committee document states the commission was particularly interested in the inconsistent standards for print and online media.

It contrasted the broad scope of the standards for online media in the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 with the narrow standards for print media.

It intended to produce advice that balanced freedom of speech with safety for communities.

However, Little said this would not form part of the upcoming hate speech law, as there were other places for complaints for print media.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Justice Minister forges ahead with hate speech laws for New Zealand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proposed hate speech laws for New Zealand are imminent. Justice Minister Andrew Little told Stuff the Government is bringing forward changes around hate speech, but shaping a law had taken time. A number of options were now "working their way through" the cabinet process, he said.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/practice-resources/practice-areas/human-rights/freedom-of-speech-vs-hate-speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since the Christchurch Mosque attacks the Human Rights Commission, supported by the Federation of Muslim Associations, wants the government to consider changing the law to protect religious groups against hate speech. Justice Minister Andrew Little also would like to speed up the process to review hate crime laws. The National Party supports the review but is cautious about the removal of freedom of speech principles.

A June 2018 media release by the acting Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero said the Human Rights Commission was not campaigning to limit free speech and neither were they wanting to ban disharmonious or hate speech aimed at certain religions, and to make such comments an offence.

The ground has changed and there is already a wide-ranging public discussion on whether New Zealand should make changes to the law relating to what people can say. What is the current law in New Zealand, and how have other jurisdictions managed matters?

New Zealand
What is Hate Speech?
Section 61 of the Human Rights Act provides that it shall be unlawful for anyone to publish or distribute threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to excite hostility or bring into contempt any group of persons who may be coming to or in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race or ethnic origins of that group of persons. Section 61 treats the matter as a civil not a criminal one and complaints go to the Human rights Commission.

Section 131 of the Human Rights Act deals with more extreme acts of offensive speech. It is a criminal offence to publish or use threatening, abusive or insulting words. This section requires an intention of exciting ill-will or hostility to the people targeted, so this is a tougher test than section 61.

There is one case of a criminal prosecution for 'hate speech' against the far-right activist Colin King-Ansell, King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531, for distributing a pamphlet that was held to vilify Jews. He was sentenced to prison, but on appeal he was fined $400.

The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 also provides some protection against hate speech. Under section 22 a person who posts a digital communication with the intention that it causes harm to a victim, judged by the standard of the reasonable person in the position of the victim and it does cause harm commits a criminal offence, is subject to two years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $50,000. The definition of "posts a digital communication". Harm is defined as meaning "Serious emotional distress."
Freedom of Speech
Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) - provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind. However, s5 of the BORA provides that freedom of speech is subject to limits. The BORA does not have supremacy over other legislation. Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in the BORA may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The United Kingdom

In October 2018 the UK Law Commission announced that it is to complete a wide-ranging review into hate crime to explore how to make current legislation more effective and to consider whether there should be additional protected characteristics such as misogyny and age.
Freedom of Speech
In the United Kingdom, 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects the rights to 'hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.'

This freedom, however, may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.
Hate Speech
of the Public Order Act 1986 says it is an offence for a person to use 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress'.

Over the years the law has been revised to include language that is deemed to incite 'racial and religious hatred' as well as 'hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" and language that "encourages terrorism".

It has been argued that the laws against hate speech can easily cross the line and become an infringement on freedom of speech rights. This is illustrated in the Scottish YouTuber Mark Meechan case PF v Mark Meechan where he was fined £800 after being found "grossly offensive" for posting a YouTube video that was viewed over 3 million times depicting him training his girlfriend's pug to respond to the phrase "Sieg Heil" by lifting his paw in a Nazi salute.

Germany

Similarly, in Germany a report "Article 19 Germany: Responding to 'hate speech'' examines legislation, policies and practices related to hate speech in Germany and was produced with the financial support from the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) of the European Union.

"Incitement to hatred" is an offence under Germany's criminal code (s30 of the Strafgesetzbuch). It is a crime to incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. This offence is also punishable in Germany if it is committed abroad.

The German Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (Network Enforcement Act, "NetzDG") which came into force on 1 October 2017, criminalises hate speech on social media sites. It obliges social network providers to delete unlawful content within a short time frame. Failure to do so is a regulatory offence which can incur considerable fines.

The report above recommends among other things that the Criminal Code should undergo comprehensive review and that all offences that are not compatible with international freedom of expression should be abolished. The advocacy of discriminatory hatred which constitutes incitement to hostility, discrimination, or violence should be prohibited in line with Articles 19(3) and 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, establishing a high threshold for limitations on free expression. It also recommends that the NetzDG should be repealed and consideration to provisions on reporting requirements in alternative legislation to increase transparency around online content moderation.

Australia

In Australia the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) restricts hate speech. Section 18C of this Act provides that: 'anything that is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend insult humiliate or intimidate on the grounds of race is unlawful'.

The courts have interpreted this in the way that it is not enough under Australian law to say that you have been offended insulted or humiliated on racial grounds. It needs to be tested against an objective measure - it must involve an act that causes profound and serious effects. The Act is also not a criminal provision. Complaints will be made to the Australian Human Rights Commission, which attempts to bring the two parties together to conciliate the matter.

According to Brazilian-born legal scholar and a Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Dr Augusto Zimmermann, one of the most effective means by which free speech can be silenced is under the cover of laws against racial discrimination. In a 2014 Free Speech Symposium paper he said that s18C of the RDA is an extremely broad prohibition and is an extraordinary limitation of freedom of speech. Amendments to the RDA were abandoned due to concerns that the changes would impact the government's relationship with the Australian Muslim community. He continues:

" the ability of Western democracies to defend their own interests is weakened by hate speech laws that make citizens ill prepared to criticise or give warnings about the nature of religious beliefs, however well-based these warnings might be. This is the singular tragedy of hate speech laws that reduce free speech on some of the most fundamental issues of public morality."

Dr Zimmermann says that free speech does not disadvantage minority groups, nor does it favour those with more power. It is a core principle of every democratic society. All totalitarian governments restrict speech as a matter of course.

United States of America
Free Speech
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment.

In a recent case Matal v Tam 582 U.S._(2017) the Supreme Court confirmed by a unanimous decision that prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may 'disparage' persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate." ( Matal v. Tam, 2017)

The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
Hate Speech
There are no laws against hate speech in the USA, however there are laws against hate crimes - acts that are already crimes but are motivated by hatred may receive an additional penalty.

The First Amendment protects speech no matter how offensive - it does not protect behaviour that is targeted harassment or threats or that creates a pervasively hostile environment.

Canada
Freedom of expression
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution Act, 1982 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms which includes freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom on the press and other media of communication (s2(b)).

However, Canadians do not have a universal right to freedom of speech and expressing certain ideas and opinions are regulated by law. The Canadian constitution's declaration provides that the government has a right to restrain freedoms with reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Hate speech
Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides that:

Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of: (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Identifiable group is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability."

Section 320(8) classifies any writing, sign or visible representation that would constitute a s319 offence as "Hate Propaganda."
Canadian Human Rights Act
Section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on 'race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.'
Canadian Court slams publication promoting hate against women
In the casethe defendantsJames Sears and LeRoy St. Germaine, the editor and publisher of a newsletter promoting rape legalization and Holocaust denial, were charged with willful promotion of hatred against women and Jews. Ontario Court of Justice disagreed with the defendants' claim that the publication was meant to be satire, noting "both men were fully aware of the unrelenting promotion of hate" and both were found guilty on January 24, 2019. The office of the Attorney General of Ontario noted that this was the first charge and conviction in Ontario for promoting hate against women.

Citron v. Zündel TD 1/02 (2002/01/18):In this case a complaint was filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission which found that the respondent, Zündel, had a homepage on the internet that provided publications and pamphlets that were likely to expose persons of the Jewish faith and ethnic origin to hatred and contempt contrary to s13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. An overarching theme found on the materials was "unrelenting questioning of the "truth" related to the extent of the persecution of Jews by Nazi Germany during the second World War". In this case the Tribunal discussed the meaning of 'hatred' or 'contempt' with reference to another decision Nealy v Johnson (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6450 where the definition was approved by the Supreme Court.

With hatred the focus is a set of emotions and feelings which involve extreme ill will towards another person or group of persons... It is a term, however, which does not necessarily involve the mental process of looking down on another or others. It is quite possible to hate someone who one feels is superior to one in intelligence, wealth, or power... Contempt is by contrast a term which suggests a mental process of looking down upon or treating as inferior the object of one's feelings.
Tracey Cormack is employed by the New Zealand Law Society as Legal Writer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the Christchurch Mosque attacks the Human Rights Commission, supported by the Federation of Muslim Associations, wants the government to consider changing the law to protect religious groups against hate speech. Justice Minister Andrew Little also would like to speed up the process to review hate crime laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hate Speech Law Reform Legislation Postponed NZ

# data[].attributes.subject
Hate Speech Law Reform Legislation Postponed NZ

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/121922974/hate-speech-law-stalled-until-after-election--no-support-yet-from-nz-first

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A proposal that could make hate speech a criminal offence, as it is in the United Kingdom, has been stalled and is unlikely to pass before the election.

The Government fast-tracked a review of hate speech legislation in the wake of the March 15 Christchurch terror attack last year. Justice Minister Andrew Little declared existing legislation on the issue "woefully inadequate".

Following the review, the Justice Ministry and Human Rights Commission presented Little with options. In March, he said these were "working their way through" the cabinet process, and that he expected an announcement within weeks.

But on Tuesday, he told Stuff Labour was still in talks with its government partners and confirmed the legislation would likely not go to Cabinet until after the election.

However, some NZ First MPs claim the party is yet to see any policy and indicated it was unlikely to support the law.

READ MORE:
* Justice Minister forges ahead with hate speech laws for New Zealand
* Hate speech up since Christchurch terror attack; Government considers law changes
* Freedom of speech: Do we need to update our Human Rights Act?
* Hate crime law review fast-tracked following Christchurch mosque shootings

Little said hate speech legislation was subject to ongoing discussions between coalition partners and was in the policy development stage when the country went into lockdown.

There had been discussions about setting the policy, in terms of what the government might do, he said.

"We haven't progressed much further than that."

"We don't have any draft or amending legislation but the ideas and thoughts about what we can do, and what might change, are the subject of discussions between partners," Little said.

He said his office had sent papers to NZ First.

"I can't account for what they have or have not done. But I do know there has been a circulation of policy or principles papers, and we have had feedback from some ministers."

But Deputy Prime Minister and NZ First leader Winston Peters said he had yet to see anything on hate speech come across his desk.

"This is a matter we have got to consider. It is one thing to lay out a prognosis of what you are going to do but let's look at the substance and detail and see how it affects the values and freedoms of our society."

NZ First supported freedom for people and would stand by that, Peters said.

Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin, a NZ First MP, said she had not seen any documents about hate speech legislation.

She had not been asked to consult on it politically or as a minister.

"I'm part of the ministerial consultation process, I'm part of the political consultation process and I haven't seen any of that."

When NZ First's justice spokesman Darroch Ball was asked on Tuesday about the proposed laws, he said he believed it was at the Cabinet process level.

But when informed that Little had confirmed it was not with Cabinet, he said there was nothing much more he could add. "It's just following the normal process of discussions."

Late on Wednesday, after Stuff revealed the law had been stalled, he sent a statement to say: "NZ First received the proposal before the Covid lockdown, and is following the normal process of discussions".

ACT leader David Seymour said it was wrong for the Government to use the nation's tragedy in Christchurch to try to shut down speech and debate.

ACT had always said that freedom of expression was essential to a free society and must be protected.

"Of course, threatening or inciting violence should be offences, but people shouldn't be punished simply for expressing an opinion.

"We already see people try to use claims of 'hate speech' as a weapon against their political opponents. It's deeply divisive and would only get worse with tougher hate speech laws."

In January, Netsafe and minority groups called for better recording on the front lines of hate crimes.

It came as 15 per cent of Kiwi adults reported having been personally targeted with online hate speech in the last 12 months, up four percentage points on the previous year, according to Netsafe's second survey on the subject.

The Justice Ministry has looked at relevant aspects of the Human Rights Act, the Harmful Digital Communications Act, and sections of the Crimes Act to see what laws need to be changed or added. It also consulted with affected communities and reported back to Little before Christmas, with the expectation an announcement would be made shortly after.

Justice Ministry chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite told Stuff earlier this year that hate speech was a "tricky thing" to navigate.

The Human Rights Commission had led some work with the ministry as they wanted some conversation to happen away from the political fray, given it could easily be derailed with so many strongly held views, he said.

"In reality you want to have a conversation with New Zealanders about what is the right balance between the Government politicians and officials. We want society to have a conversation about this and avoid protests. You've got to think quite deeply and thoughtfully about it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hate speech law stalled until after election - no support yet from NZ First

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A proposal that could make hate speech a criminal offence, as it is in the United Kingdom, has been stalled and is unlikely to pass before the election. The Government fast-tracked a review of hate speech legislation in the wake of the March 15 Christchurch terror attack last year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Debate on Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech NZ

# data[].attributes.subject
Debate on Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech NZ

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/04/free-speech-debate-reignites-after-christchurch-terror-attack.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bridge says he's worried about allowing the Government to censor what people can read and view as it's a "dangerous power to give to the Government".

"The problem you have when you start to limit free speech and you talk about hate speech is who's the censor? Who's the person who decides that what you might consider to be hate speech might be what I consider to be a reasonable criticism of say immigration policy for example," he says.

"You've got really well-respected academics in this country and around the world who would tell you that the fear people have about limiting freedom of speech is who is the censor? Who is the person who decides that is hate speech that's not?

"Because what we consider ok to say today might be banned tomorrow, and the ruler, the adjudicator in that is the state and I don't think they should have that right."

New Zealanders don't just face censorship from the Government, they could face new laws. Justice Minister Andrew Little has been urgently reviewing New Zealand's hate speech laws.

Little told RNZ hate speech is not adequately dealt with at present by the Human Rights Act and Harmful Digital Communications Act.

"The conclusion I've drawn as the minister is that the laws are inadequate and I think we need to do better," Mr Little said.
Will cracking down drive people underground?
Fredrick Brennan founded notorious image-board website 8chan in 2013 as he believed rival website 4chan was becoming authoritarian and censoring free speech.

Since then it's become a hotbed for extremist views and faced controversy over child pornography, swatting incidents and co-ordinated harassment campaigns.

On the day of the massacre at the mosques, the alleged gunman appears to have posted on 8chan with links to his livestream and so-called manifesto.

Although that post was deleted, the video has been reposted on 8chan in the days since, along with sickening comments of support for the terrorist and joke memes about his atrocity.

After the attack a number of overseas websites were blocked by New Zealand internet service providers, including 8chan and Kiwi Farms.

The decision itself to block these websites has been controversial but Dr Buchanan says it was necessary as they offer a "megaphone to hate mongers".

"They operate under the cloak of free speech but they are in fact hate speech," he told Newshub.

"They were urging the shooter to shoot kids again. Under no fair conception of free speech should that stuff see the light of day."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free speech debate reignites after Christchurch terror attack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bridge says he's worried about allowing the Government to censor what people can read and view as it's a "dangerous power to give to the Government". "The problem you have when you start to limit free speech and you talk about hate speech is who's the censor?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/112264302/criminalising-hate-speech-new-zealand-considers-policing-hateful-expression

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A rugby star says homosexuals will go to hell. A man is arrested for hurling abuse outside a mosque. But are these rants illegal - and should they be? Just what is hate speech, and when does it become a crime? Michelle Duff reports.
Last year, a human rights taskforce was assembled to tackle what authorities considered was a growing issue.

Anecdotally, hate-motivated speech and acts were on the rise. Around three in 10 Kiwis reported viewing abuse online. In the real world, there seemed to be more reports of incidents - a beer can and an abusive tirade hurled at a Muslim woman here, an attempted racist assault there.

Staff from the Human Rights Commission (HRC), Netsafe, and UNESCO began meeting with researchers and Government departments in an attempt to understand if New Zealand's hate speech laws were strong and relevant enough in an age of cyber-abuse and rising online tribalism.

Then, global alt-Right figures Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern hit the headlines when they were denied a platform by Auckland mayor Phil Goff ahead of a planned trip.

Proponents of free speech were incensed. The public conversation swirled.

The taskforce quietly disbanded.

"We dropped the work," says distinguished professor Paul Spoonley, of Massey University, who wrote a briefing paper for the group last year. "There just seemed to be no public appetite for change, and we didn't think we'd get anywhere.

"Then, March 15 happened."

The terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques, in which 50 people were killed, have brought questions of whether New Zealand is doing enough to legislate against racial and religiously-motivated attacks to the fore.

For those in minority advocacy groups, and the Human Rights Commission, the answer is a clear no.

Justice Minister Andrew Little has signalled his agreement, telling Stuff in March he would fast-track a review of the existing legislation governing hate speech - primarily the Human Rights Act and the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

He would also consider sections of the Crimes Act, and did not rule out establishing "hate crime" as a separate offence, as it is currently in the United Kingdom.

Opponents, including ACT MP David Seymour and conservative think-tank the Maxim Institute, say free speech is a basic tenet of democracy and any hasty tightening of the law threatens to trample that right.

The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act. But should that overshadow people's right to be safe? And where's the line?

'A gauge of our society'

​It's 12.30pm in Palmerston North, and the door of the local Islamic Centre is wide open. Outside, Anglican priest Reverend Andy Hickman scoffs a samosa from the nearby halal dairy as he talks to Manawatū Muslim Association spokesman Zulfiqar Butt.

Since March 15, the association has been floored by the community's empathetic response. Butt scrawls through his phone, displaying pictures of rows after rows of flowers left by locals outside the mosque.

But, president Riyaz Rahman says, there is still work to be done. While most people are supportive, there have been hate-motivated incidents, too - such as a swastika-clad man loitering outside the mosque and a taxi driver who was racially abused and called a terrorist.

The association, along with its umbrella organisation the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ), thinks more needs to be done to monitor the spread of hate. They are advocating for hate speech laws to be clarified, and want police to begin routinely recording hate crimes at the very least.

"It is mainly to gauge the state of our society. Sometimes we think we are living in a very harmonious society but these things exist, and we need to know how big the issues are," Rahman says.

"I think the freedom of expression that we have does not allow for hate to be curbed. Sometimes we're not able to identify the problem - there needs to be a line drawn somewhere so we know what is what."

Currently, "hate crime" is not a specific offence in New Zealand, and incidents are not recorded.

This is in stark contrast to countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, where departments such as the Home Office and the FBI gather and publish annual statistics on hate crime and agencies exist to deal with this alone.

Since 2002, hostility against someone on the basis of a "common characteristic" - race, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability - can be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Essentially, the penalty can be harsher if it has been proven the crime was motivated by hatred. But it's unclear how often this is used, as the data is not collected.

Police also have the ability to note when they believe a crime is hate-fuelled. But this isn't mandatory or routine either. And, while the ethnicity of the perpetrator is recorded, that of the victim is not.

Take the incident of April 10 in Christchurch, where a man in a Trump t-shirt allegedly hurled abuse at members of the Muslim community gathered at Masjid Al Noor on Deans Ave.

Two armed police were present, but did not arrest the man. He was arrested the next day, and charged with disorderly behaviour. Canterbury police district commander Superintendent John Price later said he should have been arrested at the scene.

In terms of statistics, there is no way of differentiating this from any other offence.

The Human Rights Commission and ethnic minority groups have been calling for this to change since at least 2016, saying there would be a way of police recording hate-fuelled crimes through their own processes, without it needing to be established as a separate offence under the Crimes Act.

The HRC's chief legal advisor Janet Anderson Bidois says police could alter their recording systems without needing a law change. "We need that front end data, and these are discussions that need to be had quickly."

But others think more specific legislation is needed. FIANZ spokesman Dr Anwar Ghani says hate crime laws such as those introduced in the United Kingdom are long overdue.

If attacks based on a victim's religion or race were expressly outlawed, people would feel more confident to report to police, and police to make arrests, Ghani says.

"A lot of people, because there's no law, think there's nothing that can be done so they don't come forward. A number of our members have been subjected to physical and verbal abuse, but they've thought as a new immigrant to this country they've just got to get through this.

"It's more prevalent than we would like to think."

Police would not be interviewed for this story. In a statement, a spokeswoman said they were "engaged in ongoing conversations" with community leaders and representatives about how police record allegations of hate crime and crimes of prejudice. They were set to review policy on collecting ethnicity data for victims.

What about hate speech?

"Most New Zealanders don't know what hate speech is, because they don't encounter it," says Spoonley, who has been studying it for years, alongside the evolution of the alt-Right.

Technically, the Council of Europe says it covers: "All forms of expression that spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobic, anti-Semitism, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance."

In New Zealand, many argue the laws are not specific enough.

The main legislation covering "hate speech" is the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA).

Section 61 of the HRA prohibits the "incitement of disharmony" on the basis of race, ethnicity, colour or national origins. But the HRC has long called for its review, saying it has major omissions - currently, it doesn't not cover hate for reasons of religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

The HRA is a civil law, not a criminal one. Cases can be resolved through mediation or taken to the Human Rights Review Tribunal - but with a current backlog of cases, this would be lucky to be heard within two years.

And the threshold is high. The most recent high-profile case concerned controversial cartoons published in The Press and The Marlborough Express in 2013, which featured negative depictions of Māori and Pacific people.

MP Louisa Wall complained the cartoons, which portrayed Māori and Pacific as welfare bludgers and negligent parents, were "insulting and ignorant put-downs."

The tribunal ruled while the cartoons may have "offended, insulted or even angered", they were "not likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins". Wall also lost a 2017 High Court appeal.

Hate speech is also restricted by the Harmful Digital Communications Act, which made cyber abuse a crime in 2015. For a successful prosecution, it has to be argued the material caused serious emotional distress to the victim.

This means comments like those made by rugby superstar Israel Folau - who posted on Instagram that hell awaits "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars and fornicators" among others unless they repent - would fall short of breaking the law.

"It's pretty offensive to much of the population, but that in and of itself is not an offence," Netsafe chief executive Martin Cocker says. "We would prefer if people weren't offensive, but we wouldn't expect to see them prosecuted for it. We would expect to see them prosecuted for causing harm. We need to have thresholds that are consistent and enforceable, and it is important to protect free speech."

While critics say "serious emotional distress" is too high a threshold, Cocker says the law is operating "pretty much as we hoped it would." Netsafe deals with complaints that are not prosecuted, through mediation and helping the victim to have the content removed by a court order.

"It's giving people a service they can access that is massively effective, and police are making prosecutions under the act."

'You have to ask, is it even working?'

Spoonley says the wording of our HRA is generally considered to be world-leading. The main issues are the omission of religious identity, disability, and gender and sexuality from Section 61. "It needs to be extended to other victims of hate speech."

There are also questions about how useful it is in practice.The fact that the last successful prosecution under the act was in the late 1970s - for two neo-Nazis who were distributing anti-Semitic materials - suggests it's rarely used, Spoonley says.

"You have to ask, is it even working?

"Our free speech environment is very permissive, which is partly because we haven't really experienced the politics of the far right."

​Spoonley would like to see a debate about expanding Section 61 and whether the current legal framework is up to task, what the severity test is, and who makes the decisions.

"I do think the severity threshold needs to be quite high, you don't want people who are offended to be laying complaints all the time."

This is a concern promoted by proponents of free speech, like ACT MP David Seymour. He says the idea of any more restrictive laws are "terrifying" for democracy.

"Freedom of speech is a value in itself, being able to freely express ourselves is what it means to be human. Not only does it have an intrinsic value, but it has a practical value in that it allows us to solve problems and think of other ways to do things.

"When you think of social movements - how would feminism have happened if we didn't have freedom of expression? And how do you define hate - are you not allowed to say things that other people find offensive?"

Both Seymour and Spoonley point out we already have all kinds of limitations on speech - defamation laws, the HDCA, and industry bodies like the Media Council and the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

But while Seymour considers these to be more than enough, Spoonley says it makes no sense to leave hate-fuelled discrimination out of the conversation. "I'm puzzled as to why race and religion should be treated any differently."

Spoonley would also like to see social media platforms held to account.

In Germany, which has experienced the rise of hateful ideas, there are strict regulations - a law introduced in 2018 requires Facebook and Twitter to remove "obviously illegal" hate speech from its sites within 24 hours of notification or they can be fined up to €50 million ($84m).

"As a country, we are only really starting to think about what we require of these platforms."

In the coming months, the Ministry of Justice will report back to Little on what might need to change.

The details remain murky, but in the aftermath of March 15, hate speech is now clearly back on the agenda.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Criminalising hate speech: New Zealand considers policing hateful expression

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A rugby star says homosexuals will go to hell. A man is arrested for hurling abuse outside a mosque. But are these rants illegal - and should they be? Just what is hate speech, and when does it become a crime? Michelle Duff reports.

# data[].attributes.headline
Don Brash Booed Off Stage at Auckland University

# data[].attributes.subject
Don Brash Booed Off Stage at Auckland University

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/363742/protesters-confront-don-brash-during-debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Former National Party leader Don Brash was last night front and centre of the free speech debate that's been been making headlines in New Zealand and around the world.

Dr Brash was nearly booed off stage at the University of Auckland debate, before counter-protesters persuaded him back by chanting his name.

The event comes after Canadian right-wing speakers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux's visit to New Zealand, which ignited impassioned arguments in favour of their right to speak here and against their controversial views.

Dr Brash's speaking event was controversially cancelled at Massey University's Manawatu campus earlier this week after threats were made on Facebook.

Nonetheless, the University of Auckland's debating society decided to go ahead with its scheduled event, which also featured New Zealand Herald journalists Simon Wilson and Fran O'Sullivan.

Dr Brash was joined by the New Conservative Party's deputy leader Elliot Ikiley in arguing that PC culture gone has too far, to the point where it is limiting freedom of speech.

However, Dr Brash only got a few seconds to argue the point before he was drowned out by protesters.

At one stage a scuffle broke out and it looked like he was not going to continue speaking, before a section of the crowd beckoned him back.

Eventually he did get a chance to address the crowd of more than 500, arguing that the protests were a demonstration that the culture in New Zealand is inhibiting free speech.

"Anything which is a bit beyond the pale you really can't talk about frankly," he told the lecture theatre. "Issues relating to religion, sexual orientation, family structure, the rights of people of different races, climate change - you name it - you've got to tiptoe through those issues in New Zealand today."

The group that organised the protest cited Dr Brash's previous comments about tangata whenua as its primary motivation.

Organiser Beth Stanley said they felt it was necessary to demonstrate that his views were not welcome at the University of Auckland.

"He's spent his whole career working to tear down Māori rights, to tear down te reo, to tear down Te Tiriti o Waitangi and we don't want his hatred and division on our campus," she said.

But that was by no means the consensus at the debate.

Auckland couple Paul and Cathy Davie were a small but noisy counterbalance to the vocal protesters. They had wanted to go to the Lauren Southern-Stefan Molyneux talk before it was cancelled.

"It's important for all views to be heard and all views to be discussed, not oppressed like these people are trying to do," Mr Davie said.

Speaking after the debate, Dr Brash said he was extremely irritated by the reputation he had as being anti-Māori.

He said he had expected protests, but perhaps not to this extent.

"I've been involved in a lot of confrontational situations but that is probably at the upper end of the range."

In the end, debate chairman Chris Ryan left it to the audience to decide who won, with both teams getting loud applause and cheers from the crowd - as well as a fair few boos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protesters confront Don Brash during debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former National Party leader Don Brash was last night front and centre of the free speech debate that's been been making headlines in New Zealand and around the world. Dr Brash was nearly booed off stage at the University of Auckland debate, before counter-protesters persuaded him back by chanting his name.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105394744/don-brash-says-people-have-a-right-to-air-racist-views-in-new-zealand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Former National Party and ACT leader Dr Don Brash says it's important to protect free speech - so he's taking Auckland Council to court over a decision barring two right-wing speakers from using its venues.

Brash is part of a group of lawyers, academics and former politicians called the Free Speech Coalition. It announced on Tuesday it had raised $50,000 for a judicial review of a decision by council agency Auckland Live.

Auckland Live director Robbie Macrae last week said security concerns around "the health and safety of the presenters, staff and patrons" led to the cancellation of a planned speech by Canadian duo Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux.

The Canadian pair were due to speak at Takapuna's Bruce Mason Theatre in August as part of an Australasian tour.

READ MORE:
* Free speech group raises $50k to challenge Auckland Council over far-Right speaker ban
* Cancellation of controversial talk 'brutal censorship'

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff backed that decision, tweeting: "Views that divide rather than unite are repugnant and I have made my views on this very clear."

The right to free speech did not mean the right to be provided with an Auckland Council platform.

Brash said he hoped Goff recognised he was in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, and potentially of the Human Rights Act, although the latter did have a contradiction.

"The Bill of Rights Act makes it absolutely unambiguous that you can express any views you like provided you're not threatening somebody," Brash said in an interview on RNZ's Morning Report.

"A mayor simply cannot make a judgment of someone else's political views when he decides who can use the council's facilitie.

"I think it's important that the council facilities, which are paid for by all ratepayers, are available to people with a wide range of political views."

Brash also referred to a decision by the Nelson City Council in April to cancel a speech at Nelson Library by retired physicist Bruce Moon, who was to talk about what Moon called the "fake history" of New Zealand, focusing on the Treaty of Waitangi.

On that occasion, a council official said threats had been made which would potentially put the speaker and library staff at risk. The council said the reason the talk was cancelled was because a balanced discussion couldn't be held at the venue, and that the information initially provided to them was incorrect.

Brash told Morning Report he had not researched the views of Southern or Molyneaux - and added he was not defending their views, but defending their right to express them.

When host Guyon Espiner told Brash that Molyneaux was reported to have said some races were more intelligent than others, Brash agreed those views were racist.

"There are some people who think that. I don't think that. I've never argued that for one single moment," he said.

"We're talking here not about his particular views. I'm not defending those views. I'm defending the right of free speech. That's the important issue."

But when Espiner asked Brash whether he was supporting the right to make racist views in New Zealand, Brash replied: "Yes."

Brash was asked about his move in 2006 to use an injunction to stop the publication of the Nicky Hager book The Hollow Men.

"That was not on free speech grounds. It was on the grounds that we thought that the book involved disclosing a lot of private emails from members of the public to me as leader of the opposition, and I thought it was important that members of the public were able to communicate with me without fear of being disclosed," Brash said.

"Private correspondence is quite different from speaking in public. As soon as I discovered it was about the National Party, I lifted that injunction."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don Brash says people have a right to air racist views in New Zealand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former National Party and ACT leader Dr Don Brash says it's important to protect free speech - so he's taking Auckland Council to court over a decision barring two right-wing speakers from using its venues. Brash is part of a group of lawyers, academics and former politicians called the Free Speech Coalition.

# data[].attributes.body
https://theconversation.com/there-are-differences-between-free-speech-hate-speech-and-academic-freedom-and-they-matter-124764

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week, posters appeared at the University of Auckland inviting young white men to "assume the mantle of re-taking control of our own country" and to confront "anti-racism ideology".

The group was obviously unaware of the significance of the British High Commissioner's expression of regret, in the same week, for the killing of several Māori people during their first encounter with the English explorer James Cook in 1769.

At least 1,300 academics and students signed an open letter, arguing that racism and white supremacy have no place at the university and challenging the Vice Chancellor's initial position that there is no justification for removing the posters.

This week, the Vice Chancellor changed his position, telling staff that a debate about free speech should be put to one side for now, as the most important matter was the "real hurt and sense of threat that some people in our university community feel in response to these expressions of white supremacist views".

Read more: Academic freedom is under threat around the world - here's how to defend it

Free speech vs academic freedom

Neither the Vice Chancellor nor the signatories to the open letter bring academic freedom into the debate. But minister of justice Andrew Little, a former president of the New Zealand University Students' Association, argued that there is " no principle of academic freedom " that says white supremacy ought to be protected.

Free speech, hate speech and academic freedom are related but different. And the differences matter.

Free speech is the right to say whatever one likes. It is unconstrained by the disciplines of reason and objectivity. It doesn't require factual accuracy. As with academic freedom, it doesn't matter if one's opinion is unpopular. Both free speech and academic freedom are essential to democracy.

Free speech belongs in universities as much as anywhere else. It is the right to hold opinions and to challenge the opinions of others. A Chinese student in New Zealand once asked me if it was alright to criticise the prime minister in an essay. This underscores the importance of free speech, but also the need for great caution in setting its limits.

Academic freedom protects free speech on the one hand, but conditions it on the other. Universities cannot support the unrestricted pursuit of knowledge if one cannot think freely. But knowledge cannot be tested and doesn't advance if there isn't also a duty to be well informed and reasoned - and willing to have one's ideas scrutinised by others.

In a university, the test of a reasonable opinion is higher. One cannot say whatever one likes and call it academic freedom.

Hate speech as a limit

Both free speech and academic freedom are limited by hate speech.

According to the United Nations, hate speech is:

any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.

When people say that they want to "reclaim" a country as their own and contest "anti-racism" they are saying overtly and unapologetically that they don't want others to have a democratic presence. They are saying that they don't want others to have free speech. Nor do they want academics who are not "young white men" to have academic freedom.

These aren't democratically legitimate differences of opinion because " toleration is not the solution to intolerance ".

There are differences between what is wrong and what is intolerably wrong. There are some views that a free society can't tolerate.

Racism is intolerably wrong because it denies some people human equality. It creates a hierarchy of human worth and causes serious harm to its targets.

Read more: Friday essay: networked hatred - new technology and the rise of the right

A 'right to be bigots'

In Australia, free speech is restricted under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which provides that:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

There are significant qualifications to these restrictions. But, in spite of these, in 2014 the attorney general told parliament that the act imposed unreasonable constraints on people's " right to be bigots ".

The conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs claimed in 2018 that university policies curtailing free speech had dramatically increased in the preceding two years. The University of Sydney's Vice Chancellor argued that robust processes "ensure that freedom of speech from all parts of the spectrum is alive and well on our campuses".

But earlier this year, a government-commissioned inquiry found that "claims of a freedom of speech crisis on Australian campuses are not substantiated". The review also found that universities should not allow visitors to use their premises to "advance theories or propositions ... which fall below scholarly standards to such an extent as to be detrimental to the university's character as an institution of higher learning".

Defending a right to bigotry, or to express hate speech, trivialises what the denial of both free speech and academic freedom can really look like. In China, for example, the state has warned against the presence of " mistaken views " in universities, including the study of constitutional democracy, civil society, economic liberalisation, freedom of the press, challenges to socialism with Chinese characteristics and discussion of universal values including academic freedom.

In the case of the white supremacy posters, it would seem that University of Auckland academics, not the Vice Chancellor, had the stronger argument.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There are differences between free speech, hate speech and academic freedom - and they matter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, posters appeared at the University of Auckland inviting young white men to "assume the mantle of re-taking control of our own country" and to confront "anti-racism ideology". The group was obviously unaware of the significance of the British High Commissioner's expression of regret, in the same week, for the killing of several Māori people during their first encounter with the English explorer James Cook in 1769.

# data[].attributes.headline
Force for Good or Threat to Free Speech?

# data[].attributes.subject
Force for Good or Threat to Free Speech?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/a33296561/cancel-culture-a-force-for-good-or-a-threat-to-free-speech/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's begin with what cancel culture is and what it isn't, because it has come to mean a great deal of different things to different people. To some, it poses a grave danger to free speech. To some, it is a new take on 'political correctness gone mad' and a method used by the intolerant left to enforce a puritanical censure.

To others, it's just a way of saying that someone has done something they perceive to be offensive and therefore has lost their respect. It is not a new phenomenon - free speech has always had consequences, especially when that speech has the potential for harm. High-profile figures have been challenged and publicly criticised for apparent wrongdoings by the media for decades, celebrities who have acted in opposition with a company's values have been dropped and politicians regularly pillory their opponents. Today, it can be viewed as a way of defending the weak against higher powers. Rightly or wrongly, cancel culture gives the marginalised an amplified voice and a way to challenge damaging narratives promoted by the status quo.

Its purest definition is the boycotting of a person or organisation because of an objectionable comment or act. It is the withdrawal of support, be it no longer watching films that the offending person has starred in or books that they have written. The cancellation is akin to voiding a contract, severing ties with someone or something that you might have previously been a fan of.

Free speech has always had consequences, especially when that speech has the potential for harm

What it isn't is call-out culture, which is highlighting a mistake, condemning it if it's harmful and asking them to do better so that the individual doesn't make the same error again. Both are linked to public shaming, and both have been used as a way of achieving social justice. Both have become extremely divisive over the past six months, reaching a crescendo last week over comments made by JK Rowling about the trans community. She, along with over 150 academics, writers and authors, penned a public letter condemning cancel culture (thought to be an escalation of call-out culture) on the basis that it threatens the right to free speech, "the lifeblood of a liberal society", arguing that it promotes an "intolerance of opposing views [and] a vogue for public shaming and ostracism". It's a fascinating line to take - to argue that something endangers free speech by telling others that they don't have the right to theirs.

The debate is rampant. Others argue that our right to free speech doesn't make you entitled to hate speech. The trans activist Munroe Bergdorf says, "cancel culture is not the same as being held accountable for your actions". The journalist and author Owen Jones argued on Twitter that "All too often, 'cancel culture' becomes a means for very rich and very powerful people to pretend they are victims when people respond to very controversial things they have used their huge public platform to say". The situation has become heated indeed.

There are many pitfalls of cancel culture if we take it to mean boycotting a person and expunging them from society. "When does 'cancelling' cross over with bullying?" asks the psychologist, lecturer and author Dr Audrey Tang. "The number of Lea Michele's co-workers who spoke up about her poor behaviour may have been making a point, which Lea Michele addressed, but I refer to the tragic suicide of Caroline Flack. What outcome do those calling for change actually want? Unfortunately, when we say anything, we simply do not know how others will react."

"Psychologically, cancel culture carries echoes of Melanie Klein's 'Splitting Theory,'" says the psychotherapist Lucy Beresford. "This is where small children separate the world into good or bad, and can't integrate or tolerate the two sides of someone or something. For example, when a parent stops them having ice-cream between meals, they are 'all bad' and the child will be furious, whereas when they kiss the child goodnight, they are now 'all good' and the child is content. As we grow up, ideally, we are able to hold in our hearts the idea that someone can have different views from us and still be a good or decent person. Cancel culture doesn't allow for the same kind of nuance."

One of the potential issues with cancel culture is how it taps into feelings of shame, which rarely helps or propels an individual to learn and make positive changes. Essentially, it renders cancel culture ineffective when it comes to social justice, which is its goal. The research professor Brené Brown, who has spent two decades studying vulnerability, shame and empathy, says that shame is rarely productive.

We think we can shame people into being better, but that's not true

"We think that shaming is a great moral compass, that we can shame people into being better, but that's not true," says Brown in a recent episode of her Unlocking Us podcast. "Here's a great example that comes up a lot when I'm talking about parenting. You have a kid who tells a lie, so you shame that child, and say, 'You're a liar.' Shame corrodes the part of us that thinks that we can be different. If I'm a liar, if that's who I am, how do I ever change? How do I ever make a different decision? This is versus 'You're a good person and you told a lie, and that behaviour is not OK in this family.' Everyone needs a platform of self-worth from which to see change."

Shame is different to guilt, which can prompt positive behaviour. "When we see people apologising, making amends and changing their behaviour, that is always around guilt," says Brown. "Guilt, the whole 'I am bad', is not easy. It creates psychological pain, 'I have done something that is inconsistent or incongruous with my values or who I want to be.' When we apologise or make amends for something we've done and change our behaviour, guilt is the driving force. It's a positive, socially adaptive experience."

This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

The activist and author Jenna Arnold, who was one of the key organisers of the history-making Washington Women's March in March 2017, agrees that cancel culture is unproductive on the basis that the shame associated with being wrong deters people from moving forward. "It doesn't leave space for redemption, and while this isn't an opportunity to pardon those who have caused harm, it is worth the exercise of watching the very important role humility and responsibility can and need to take in a world that is trying to right its way."

The idea of pushing someone out - because they have said or done something perceived to be offensive - leaves no room for growth or learning. Matt Haig describes cancel culture as "anti-progress because it is anti-change". "Cancelling people pushes them away and makes them more likely to find spaces where bad views are the norm," he says. "Obviously, if someone has been convicted of, say, violence or sexual assault then they need to be punished, but cancel culture isn't that. Cancel culture, as I see it, involves the shutting down of different perspectives and treating people like mere disposable artefacts in the cultural economy."

Cancel culture involves the shutting down of different perspectives and treating people as disposable

If the purpose of cancel culture is a method to achieve justice for marginalised groups or people, then its influence isn't as great as we've been led to believe. Of individuals who have been 'cancelled' over recent years, many are still working and enjoying relative success. Many have not seen long-term boycotts - R Kelly still makes music, Woody Allen still shoots films and Louis CK still performs.

The problem with cancel culture is that it has become too broad, and near meaningless. R Kelly was cancelled over decades of sexual-assault allegations, yet so too was Jodie Comer for dating a Republican. There is no proportion. It is used in so many different contexts, both heavy and light, that it oversimplifies, and loses its weight because it allows those who have engaged in dangerous and/or harmful rhetoric and behaviour to ride on the backlash.

"When something becomes 'fashionable' it can lose meaning," says Dr Tang. "For example, when the debate around Dominic Cummings' lockdown behaviour was a social-media trend, the calls were to resign, but why not a hefty fine? Why not a suspension? In the workplace 'you're fired' is not the only option. We should not allow the complexity of the human brain to be reduced to a hashtag."

In the eyes of cancel culture, people are reduced to good or bad with no room for anything in-between. "The process is like air-brushing someone or something out," says Beresford, "It doesn't allow for the possibility that two sides could ever agree, or learn from each other, or could persuade each other of their arguments - or even agree to disagree."

Being told you're wrong is not the same as being cancelled

That's not to say that individuals should not be held accountable when they air a questionable view or do something wrong. Call-out culture is just that, the idea that we can challenge someone's opinion or action without deleting them, therefore leaving them with room to grow and learn. "Being called out has made me a better person," said Jameela Jamil on Instagram. "Not being cancelled has enabled me to be accountable, learn from my mistakes, and go on to share those lessons with others and do good with my privilege. Most of us have the potential to do that."

This content is imported from Instagram. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

When we decide to call someone out, we must resist a combative approach if we want to have the best chance of helping that person see the issues with what they may said or done. Most of us respond to criticism with defensiveness. Dr Tang says the best results come from talking to someone privately and also to challenge without accusation.

"Ask a question first to generate explanation. For example, 'When you said x what did you mean by that?'" advises Dr Tang. "It doesn't have to be nasty, nor humiliating. In fact, the more diplomatic you are, the more likely you are to effect a change of mind and that is after all, what you want. A subtle private message to see if they acted in error is more likely to influence than having a go. The latter only results in defensiveness that neither party wants fundamentally. The debate often turns on wanting to win rather than any form of learning."

Instead of calling people out, we must start calling them in

Jenna Arnold says we must use forms of restorative justice that don't make people feel threatened and therefore less likely to want to change. She wants to evolve our concept of call-out culture, instead arguing for 'call-in culture'.

"My aim is to provide practical tools to use as we start listening with open hearts to others and inviting them to listen to us in the same manner - as, instead of calling people out, we start calling them in," she says. "We must put aside the urge to win - or maybe just redefine what winning means. We're not stirring the pot with the goal of a neat resolution or a concrete answer; rather, we want to start uncomfortable conversations for the sake of urgently needed exploration. This can be hard to fully internalise. Yet this hard work is the most essential antidote to the polarisation widening the rifts in society and within ourselves."

By calling each other in, rather than out, when it comes to debate, we take into account the fundamental human desire for acceptance and to be part of a collective.

"Human beings yearn for community," she says. "We are longing to belong to something bigger than ourselves. Inviting people into the conversation - calling each other 'in' versus calling each other 'out' - is key to our survival. But that doesn't only need to happen in the wake of an awkward statement, bumper sticker or post-election conversation. We need to share ideas and seek out the perspectives of others in our communities, throughout our lives. We're no longer allowed to go back to sleep, no matter who is in the White House or how fair the world suddenly becomes. Being a citizen is active, hard, constant work."

We live in a society where it's easier than ever to have our voices heard - social media was designed for it. What we must do now is listen, regardless of which side we fall on. The free-speech argument is two-fold - progress will not be achieved through silencing either party, whether that's 'cancelling' someone, or by dismissing one's right to criticise. Being told you're wrong is not the same as being deleted. It's time to listen, process and move forward.
Sign up to our free weekly newsletter for more from Harper's Bazaar, straight to your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cancel culture: a force for good or a threat to free speech?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's begin with what cancel culture is and what it isn't, because it has come to mean a great deal of different things to different people. To some, it poses a grave danger to free speech. To some, it is a new take on 'political correctness gone mad' and a method used by the intolerant left to enforce a puritanical censure.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018736547/is-cancel-culture-repressing-freedom-of-thought

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly half a century ago, Australian philosopher Peter Singer was presented with a quandary.

He'd been approached by paediatric doctors facing an ethical dilemma: what to do about children or babies born with disabilities so debilitating their lives could be considered inherently "unhappy"?

Singer is a proponent of utilitarianism: broadly speaking, he thinks people should act in such a way to minimise suffering, and to maximise happiness.

After mulling the question over, he came up with an idea.

"We decided that, yes, it was a reasonable decision for parents and doctors to make: that it was better that infants with [certain severe disabilities] should not live."

This idea has followed him around ever since.

Peter Singer is often called one of the world's most influential philosophers; he lectures at Princeton University in New Jersey and has contributed significantly to philosophical thought in several areas, including arguably spearheading the modern vegan movement.

Earlier this year it was announced Singer would appear in New Zealand for a talk about Effective Altruism at the SkyCity Theatre in Auckland - but within weeks the company withdrew the venue, amid a backlash from disability advocates arguing Singer's views didn't deserve a platform. (Singer will now appear at a Trusts Arena venue in Te Atatu - the organisation says in a statement that arguably, refusing him permission to speak could be a breach of the Bill of Rights.)

This isn't the first time this issue has cropped up recently.

Former Reserve Bank governor Don Brash had an event at Massey University cancelled in 2018, and right-wing provocateurs Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux were also de-platformed that same year - with both decisions influenced by public outrage.

But this case is a bit different: Singer is a world-renowned philosopher, a person whose professional role is to conceive and debate boundary-pushing ideas and arguments.

Journalist and broadcaster Graeme Hill has interviewed Singer twice, and wrote an article in the New Zealand Herald in February arguing Sky City should've let him speak.

Hill says a type of groupthink is evolving in which people who see themselves as morally "right" take a perverse joy in de-platforming people they disagree with.

"The rejoicing ... finding something, anything, which doesn't fit the polite society narrative ... they can be held down, lose their jobs, [be made] exempt from society from that point forward."

Hill says the situation is comparable to the zenith of McCarthyism in the USA in the 1950s - and that a societal pushback may be required.

"It behoves us to recognise when that sort of thing is happening, and to pull back and have a good think about it.

"Mao killed millions of people through neglect, hubris and horror ... I'm not talking about that.

"But it really is dystopian ... if you feel, right, the opinion is all on my side, therefore we are RIGHT - it's easier to be caught up in it.

"And Bertrand Russell always rings in my ears: one ought to always entertain one's opinion with an element of doubt."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The philosopher whose thoughts are being cancelled

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly half a century ago, Australian philosopher Peter Singer was presented with a quandary. He'd been approached by paediatric doctors facing an ethical dilemma: what to do about children or babies born with disabilities so debilitating their lives could be considered inherently "unhappy"?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/currently-social-issues/free-speech-hate-speech-where-should-we-draw-line

# data[].attributes.headline
Defining Cancel Culture - University Media and Culture Scholar - Balanced Perspectives Explored

# data[].attributes.subject
Defining Cancel Culture - University Media and Culture Scholar - Balanced Perspectives Explored

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bisnMOujqFs

# data[].attributes.headline
Backlash from high Profile People in the Art and Academic World

# data[].attributes.subject
Backlash from high Profile People in the Art and Academic World

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53330105

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some 150 writers, academics and activists - including authors JK Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood - have signed an open letter denouncing so-called cancel culture.

They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.

The letter denounces "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism" and "a blinding moral certainty".

Cancel culture refers to online shaming of individuals who cause offence.

"The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted," says the letter.

US intellectual Noam Chomsky, eminent feminist Gloria Steinem, Russian chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov and author Malcolm Gladwell also put their names to the letter, which was published on Tuesday in Harper's Magazine.

The appearance of Harry Potter author Rowling's name among signatories comes after she recently found herself under attack online for comments that offended transgender people.

Her fellow British writer, Martin Amis, also signed the letter.

What unites young people against Obama and Trump

It also says: "We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.

"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought."

The letter condemns "disproportionate punishments" meted out to targets of cancel culture by institutional leaders conducting "panicked damage control".

It continues: "Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes."

It was signed by New York Times op-ed contributors David Brooks and Bari Weiss. The newspaper's editorial page editor was recently removed amid uproar after publishing an opinion piece by Republican Senator Tom Cotton.

The letter goes on to say that cancel culture has spread fear through arts and media.

"We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement," it says.

Racism and statues: How the toxic legacy of empire still affects us

The stories behind the statues targeted in protests

It adds: "We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences."

One signatory - Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of liberal news analysis website Vox - was rebuked by a colleague on Tuesday for putting his name to the letter.

Vox critic at large Emily VanDerWerff, a trans woman, tweeted that she had written a letter to the publication's editors to say that Yglesias signing the letter "makes me feel less safe at Vox".

But VanDerWerff said she did not want Yglesias to be fired or apologise because it would only convince him he was being "martyred".

One signatory recanted within hours of the letter being published.

Jennifer Finney Boylan, a US author and transgender activist, tweeted: "I did not know who else had signed that letter.

"I thought I was endorsing a well-meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming."

She added: "I am so sorry."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
JK Rowling joins authors decrying 'cancel culture'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some 150 writers, academics and activists - including authors JK Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood - have signed an open letter denouncing so-called cancel culture. They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.

# data[].attributes.headline
RNZ - NZ - AUT Professor Defends 'Call Out Culture'

# data[].attributes.subject
RNZ - NZ - AUT Professor Defends 'Call Out Culture'

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/2018754735/the-need-for-call-out-culture-academic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Panel discusses 'Cancel Culture' or 'Call out culture' with Khylee Quince, Associate Professor, Director of Maori and Pacific Advancement at Auckland University of Technology.

See terms of use.

Recent stories from The Panel

Podcast (MP3) Oggcast (Vorbis)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The need for 'call out culture' - academic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Panel discusses 'Cancel Culture' or 'Call out culture' with Khylee Quince, Associate Professor, Director of Maori and Pacific Advancement at Auckland University of Technology. See terms of use. Podcast (MP3) Oggcast (Vorbis)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/2915/7653/6167/Korero_Whakamauahara-_Hate_Speech_FINAL_13.12.2019.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/111814770/the-delicate-balance-of-free-speech-v-hate-speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OPINION: What steps can a Government in New Zealand realistically take to stop the spread of harmful extremism on social media like Facebook and YouTube affecting our country.

Two MPs from either side of the house give their views.

Stuart Smith
National MP Kaikōura

Finding a means to restrict free speech by legislating against "hate speech" - the modern version of blasphemy - is something that must be carefully considered.

READ MORE:
* Hate speech - we need to understand the damage it does
* Pressure will be placed on social media platforms after Christchurch shooting
* Christchurch shooting demonstrates how social media is used to spread violence

Hate speech and harmful extremism, on any platform, should not be tolerated, and we are right to scrutinise the role of social media in the context of the Christchurch tragedy, and the wider issue of extremism and hate speech.

At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that freedom of expression and free speech are hallmarks of democracy.

Parliament has recently removed blasphemy from the statute book, and it would be a travesty if that was almost immediately replaced with hate speech.

Our legal system has recourse for those seeking to incite violence.

If we legislated against hate speech, who would decide what constitutes hate speech? I am sure each of us would have a definition, and that is worthy of debate, but legislation could not and should not accommodate all levels.

That is why I believe that some of the calls to regulate free speech through legislation may go too far. There is a risk that, as with many difficult and potentially harmful issues that society grapples with, attempts to regulate social media too heavily will drive groups underground to the "dark web".

Once they are hidden, how can we as a country seek out and draw attention to these examples of hate speech so they can be countered?

Banning someone from Facebook for spreading harmful, extremist information doesn't mean they disappear and the problem is solved.

This issue is not new. Professor Paul Spoonley, Pro Vice-Chancellor at Massey University, was to give a very timely public lecture called The Politics of Hate in the Age of the Internet on March 19, but this was postponed.

He states that research points to a significant spike in online hate speech since 2017.

I agree with his argument that we should not allow it to become normalised and that this is not simply about legislation, but public awareness and discussion.

However, I do find it ironic that this viewpoint has come from a Massey professor, when that university banned a speech by Don Brash last year because the chancellor didn't agree with his views.That incident was a very good example of how the right of free speech can be limited based on the bias of others.

It is up to all New Zealanders to keep this important conversation going.

​Priyanca Radhakrishnan
Labour List MP based in Maungakiekie, Auckland

Access to the internet along with social media platforms has undeniably changed the way we consume information.

Digital technologies have changed the way we live and communicate. Like so many others, I get the news, keep in touch with family and friends on the other side of the world, and communicate with constituents through my social media platforms. Social media entertains, connects and informs us.

New technology provides these opportunities, but it also poses challenges. While discrimination and hate may have always existed, they now have new, powerful distribution channels.

As Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently said, "There is no question that ideas and language of division and hate have existed for decades, but their form of distribution, the tools of organisation, they are new."

Social media platforms have served to amplify hate speech across the world. It can be difficult to get rid of harmful messages and hateful comments on social media. Even if the original comment or post is deleted, someone, somewhere, could have already copied and shared it.

It's time for social media platforms to act to prevent the spread of hate. The Prime Minister drew a line in the sand when she said that "We cannot simply sit back and accept that these platforms just exist and that what is said on them is not the responsibility of the place where they are published. They are the publisher. Not just the postman. There cannot be a case of all profit no responsibility."

In the wake of March 15, we have the opportunity to confront the racism, xenophobia and hate that is proliferated through these channels. As individuals, we are each responsible for what we put out there on the internet, and as a country, there is an appetite for change.

We know it will be difficult but it is possible to make social media platforms a safer place for Kiwis. Last year, Germany passed a law to penalise social media platforms if they don't remove hate speech within 24 hours. They can be fined up to 50 million euros.

Facebook responded by deleting hundreds of offensive and hateful posts, including anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denial propaganda.

The Government believes the best and most enduring way to ensure change is to act collaboratively with other governments and with social media companies. The problem is global so the solution needs to be too.

The Prime Minister has committed to New Zealand playing a leading role in this change and Kiwis can expect to see more details of our plans in this space in the coming weeks.

It's time we all work together to stop the proliferation of hate online.

* Comments are closed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The delicate balance of free speech v hate speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OPINION: What steps can a Government in New Zealand realistically take to stop the spread of harmful extremism on social media like Facebook and YouTube affecting our country. Two MPs from either side of the house give their views.