Wednesday, September 22, 2004
A strange new kind of tolerance
Our political masters are constantly exhorting us to tolerance. It is the new imperative of the age. So how come the government doesn't see the deadly irony of its desire to introduce laws censoring "hate speech"?
The move follows a significant decision by the Court of Appeal, which overturned a decision by the Film and Literature Board of Review who banned a video discussing homosexuality produced by the Living Word organisation. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the censorship laws were supposed to be concerned with depictions of activity, such as sex and violence, rather than with expressions of opinion. The court held, in essence, that a publication cannot be considered objectionable under the censorship laws if all it’s doing is expressing an opinion.
Human Rights Commissioner Warren Lindberg says the Court of Appeal decision demonstrates that New Zealand law is very limited in its ability to protect individuals and society from hate speech that is injurious to the public good.
Any move to curb freedom of speech -- even speech that is downright stupid or wrong -- is an attack on one of our basic freedoms. For goodness sake, it's even protected in our Bill of Rights Act. But the government is saying that we should now only tolerate those who agree with us and the causes we champion.
Overseas, similar laws are now being used to prosecute Christians who criticise homosexuality, and to "re-educate" kids who go to college/university with politically incorrect views. Canada is now banning serious academic papers which examine socially contentious issues.
While Jim Peron and I would frequently not see eye-to-eye on matters concerning the law, he has written an excellent discussion on this issue here.
Submissions close with the Government Administration Committee on 1 October. We need to make sure that freedom is not lost through failing to speak up.
Our political masters are constantly exhorting us to tolerance. It is the new imperative of the age. So how come the government doesn't see the deadly irony of its desire to introduce laws censoring "hate speech"?
The move follows a significant decision by the Court of Appeal, which overturned a decision by the Film and Literature Board of Review who banned a video discussing homosexuality produced by the Living Word organisation. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the censorship laws were supposed to be concerned with depictions of activity, such as sex and violence, rather than with expressions of opinion. The court held, in essence, that a publication cannot be considered objectionable under the censorship laws if all it’s doing is expressing an opinion.
Human Rights Commissioner Warren Lindberg says the Court of Appeal decision demonstrates that New Zealand law is very limited in its ability to protect individuals and society from hate speech that is injurious to the public good.
Any move to curb freedom of speech -- even speech that is downright stupid or wrong -- is an attack on one of our basic freedoms. For goodness sake, it's even protected in our Bill of Rights Act. But the government is saying that we should now only tolerate those who agree with us and the causes we champion.
Overseas, similar laws are now being used to prosecute Christians who criticise homosexuality, and to "re-educate" kids who go to college/university with politically incorrect views. Canada is now banning serious academic papers which examine socially contentious issues.
While Jim Peron and I would frequently not see eye-to-eye on matters concerning the law, he has written an excellent discussion on this issue here.
Submissions close with the Government Administration Committee on 1 October. We need to make sure that freedom is not lost through failing to speak up.
