I know I’m confused in my own mind about this stuff but let’s mull it over to see if I can clear that confusion.
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship or sanction.
Hate speech is defined as speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.
So, a person intent on hate speech should have the freedom to espouse those views without sanction?
Not exactly. There are laws limiting their ability to do so.
Here in New Zealand the Human Rights Act 1993, section 61 (racial disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute “threatening, abusive or insulting … matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons … on the ground of the colour, race or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons”.
It was not introduced by some liberal leftie government but a National government under solid Jim Bolger.
I’m proud to call myself a social liberal so that all seems reasonable to me but if you are of a more conservative bent, its possible to see things differently.
This, of course, has all come to a head with the arrival of the two Canadians, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux.
They label themselves Alt Right. Others call them straight-out racists.
They are certainly white supremacists with their claims whites are superior in every way including intelligence.
This, of course, overlooks the fact that anyone not of recent African descent is descended from Africans who walked north out of Africa some 100,000 years ago and evolved lighter skin to be able to synthesise vitamin D from less sunlight.
My social liberal ethos means people like Southern and Molyneux make my white skin crawl.
I would rather they stayed in Canada and didn’t come here to proselytise their sick views.
But, surely, even they shouldn’t be denied the right to free speech?
Well, not if it breaks the law under the Human Rights Act but they obtained a visa so the powers that be thought not.
Perhaps that test would have been met once they were here and did cause trouble.
I think Auckland Mayor Phil Goff and his council were within their rights to deny access to council-owned property.
But I did like the suggestion by a commentator after the other venue pulled the pin that they be invited to a marae to put their views and to hear the views of others.
Anyway, they are gone and good riddance.
Then, just when you think the conundrum between free and hate speech has been put away in the bottom draw for a time, Massey University bans Don Brash from speaking on campus.
Now Don is an odd man with many views I don’t share but he was very nearly prime minister back in 2005.
Vice-chancellor Jan Thomas cited security fears but foolishly went further and claimed Brash’s silly Hobson’s Pledge and their views was another reason for the ban. Racist and bordering on hate speech, she claimed.
It probably is but just a month ago in an editorial she wrote “Universities support our staff and students to push boundaries, test the evidence that is put to them and challenge societal norms, including examining controversial and unpopular ideas.”
The delicious irony is that Massey is named after Prime Minister William Massey who was a magnificent racist in his own right.
He once said “New Zealanders are probably the purest Anglo-Saxon population in the British Empire. Nature intended NZ to be a white man’s country and it must be kept as such.”
This whole debate around whether something is free speech or hate speech is starting to make my brain hurt.
Wouldn’t it just be easier if we lived and let live, accepted diversity and were just all nice to each other?
