“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter”
– President George Washington
At the National Remembrance Day for the Christchurch shooting last Friday, Farid Ahmed, whose wife died in the attack, said, “I don’t want to have a heart that is boiling like a volcano. A volcano has anger, fury, rage; it doesn’t have peace, it has hatred. I don’t want to have a heart like this and I believe no one does.
“I want a heart that will be full of love and care and full of mercy and will forgive lavishly. This heart doesn’t want any more lives to be lost. This heart doesn’t like that the pain I have gone through … That is why I have chosen peace, I have chosen love and I have forgiven.”
He received a standing ovation for sharing his deeply courageous response to the shocking tragedy.
Since that fateful day on March 15, when 50 people were so needlessly killed by a lone gunman, New Zealanders have rallied around the families of the victims to share their love and support. Our Prime Minister has received national and international praise for her handling of the tragedy and for reaching out to reassure the Muslim community that they are an important part of New Zealand.
But the leadership of a nation operates on many levels. While the PM has been focussed on the suffering of the victims, in her desire to reassure New Zealanders that they are safe – and to look strong and decisive on the world stage – she has unleashed measures that have the capacity to turn our wonderful country into a totalitarian state.
Her actions are in sharp contrast to the response of the Norwegian Government following the murder of 77 mainly young people by Anders Breivik in 2011. They decided they would not allow the attack to harm their democracy. They said that the proper answer to the violence was more democracy and more openness.
Firstly, under the Prime Minister’s watch, heavy-handed State censorship has banned Brenton Tarrant’s video of the shooting and his ‘manifesto’, with draconian penalties of up to 14 years in prison or a $10,000 fine.
While the censorship of the killer’s video is something that most New Zealanders can understand, the ban of the ‘manifesto’ is a different matter. It sheds light on why the atrocity occurred and could help people to better understand how something similar could be prevented from happening in the future.
The fact that the manifesto was banned almost a week after the video also raises concerns about whether there was real or implied political pressure. Perhaps the Government did not want the public to realise that their knee-jerk responses to the shooting are exactly what the killer wanted.
Secondly, in spite of knowing the Australian gunman acted alone, and that any further threat is minimal – especially since the Order in Council that was passed just days after the shooting has already outlawed the guns used in the attack – the Prime Minister is using the tragedy to rush into law extraordinarily repressive gun controls. In doing so, she is denying some 250,000 law-abiding New Zealanders their democratic right to have a say in a proper Parliamentary submission process
In attempting to beat Australia in the speed with which firearm restrictions are being introduced, the PM is using dictatorial powers to pass the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill. The Bill is now being considered by the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee through a public submission process that is a farce – two days instead of the normal four to six months.
The Bill, which is expected to come into force on April 12, bans military-style semi-automatic firearms and assault rifles, as well as shotguns with magazines that hold more than five rounds.
Many component parts will also be outlawed including magazines holding more than 5 cartridges for a shotgun, or more than 10 cartridges for other guns, along with bump stocks, pistol grips, sights, and silencers.
Ammunition to be prohibited will be defined at a later stage by the Governor General through an Order in Council and will include armour-piercing bullets.
Exemptions to the new law include semi-automatic .22 rifles with magazines holding 10 rounds or less, and pump action shotguns with magazines holding five rounds or less.
Exemptions also exist for gun dealers, collectors, museum curators, film makers, pest controllers, and for Police and Defence Force personnel.
Penalties for breaking the new law include up to 10 years in jail.
A buy-back scheme, which is estimated will cost the Government up to $200 million, is still being worked out.
An amnesty is in place until the end of September, so that people who own guns or gun parts that will be illegal can surrender them to the Police without fear of prosecution.
The way this rushed legislation has been drafted, a majority of law abiding gun owners will be criminalised through the ownership of commonly used parts, such as sights and silencers, that will be outlawed. This demonstrates only too clearly, why complex law-changes should never be rushed through Parliament – the potential for unintended consequences is just too high.
Anyone concerned about the law change, who wants to put in a submission must do so by 6pm today (Thursday) by visiting Parliament’s website HERE – the Select Committee can be contacted on fe@parliament.govt.nz.
The Government has also stated that it intends to introduce a second round of changes to gun laws later this year, which may include the registering of firearms, as well as changes to the vetting process, police inspections, and gun storage.
Meanwhile, gang leaders are saying that they will not give up their illegal weapons even if the law compels them to do so.
Even though the dreadful crimes in Christchurch were committed by an Australian visitor acting alone, it is New Zealanders who are now paying the price. Not content with restricting our freedom and democratic rights, through censorship and rushed law changes, the Prime Minister also appears intent on limiting free speech.
Under the shadow of the Christchurch tragedy, radical opportunists are calling for hate speech laws to silence anyone speaking out against their agenda. In particular, Maori sovereignty activists are now labelling those who disagree with them as not only racists, but white supremacists and purveyors of hate speech as well.
They are targeting New Zealanders of European origin, blaming them for the colonisation of the country by Britain almost 180 years ago. White New Zealanders are now being called oppressors, vilified for the fact that Maori are not the ruling class. It is all quite extraordinary.
Just look at how a Newsroom journalist framed an opinion piece published last week:
“If you’re serious about opposing racism, I have a challenge for you. Stand with Māori against the racism they’ve endured in New Zealand for centuries.
“Since the arrival of Captain James Cook 250 years ago, Māori have struggled to gain a nationwide acceptance of their cultural values, language and spiritual beliefs. Colonisation is one of Cook’s legacies and racism against Māori is a part of it. New Zealand has inherited a British supremacy perspective and it pervades every area of our society.
“The Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840 to create an equal partnership with the British Crown. But equality has never been fully constituted for Māori within government and indeed, in our society. It has been left to Māori and their few, vilified non-Māori friends to rail against the system, to demand equality. But their attempts to deal with inequity is often met with public derision, they are told to get over it and move on…
“Since the Christchurch terror attack, we must all work to stamp out discrimination in its various guises. But the historical and systemic racism Māori face is one all Kiwis should no longer tolerate too.”
Their new tactic, based on the deception that the Treaty instituted a partnership between Maori and the Crown, seeks equality – not with other New Zealanders – but with the Government. They want to elevate Maori authority, customs and practices into a dominant position within society, with any disparity blamed on racism and white supremacy.
Instead of telling the truth – that the Treaty of Waitangi established the Queen as our sovereign, protected private property rights, and gave Maori the same rights and privileges of British citizenship as every other New Zealander – activists are perpetuating the partnership deception to blame this generation for events that happened in a different era with different norms, attitudes and values.
Writing in the Herald recently, Dame Anne Salmond epitomised this when she said: “White supremacy is a part of us, a dark power in the land. In its soft version, it looks bland and reasonable. In its hard version, it’s violent and hateful, spewing out curses, incarcerating young Māori in large numbers, denying them a decent education, homes and jobs, telling them they have no future, and are better off dead.”
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, freelance journalist Karl du Fresne expresses his concerns about the exploitation of the Christchurch tragedy by prominent people furthering their ideological agenda:
“By this I mean people like the Green MPs Golruz Ghahraman and Marama Davidson. In Parliament, Ghahraman blamed unnamed fellow MPs and breakfast radio ‘shock jocks’ for the ‘hate speech’ that she claims led to the killings.
“Ghahraman was in such a rush to apportion blame that she wasn’t prepared to wait before making a considered response based on facts and evidence rather than supposition, assumption and prejudice. And why should she, when it was so much easier to make sweeping, unsubstantiated and emotive assertions about the killings being caused by ‘hate speech’, ‘white supremacy’ and ‘gratuitous racism’?
“Davidson, meanwhile, took advantage of a vigil in honour of the shooting victims to unleash a barrage of denunciation. ‘…This land we are standing on is land we were violently removed from to uphold the same agenda that killed the people in the mosques yesterday.’
“This was not about honouring or mourning the dead. It was about finding someone to blame and settling old ideological scores.
“I find people like Ghahraman and Davidson almost as frightening as terrorists. They don’t kill anyone, but their power to change society is greater. They use the institutions of a liberal democracy to whittle away at the open society. They are, in their way, as totalitarian and intolerant of difference as any gun-toting fascist or jihadist. They virtuously embrace ethnic and religious difference (except when it comes to Christianity, which is seen as part of the white power structure) but are aggressively intolerant of political difference and free speech.”
Calls for restrictions on free speech by radical Government MPs should raise the alarm about our future. While the Bill of Rights protects our freedom of thought, expression, and association, as we have already seen through the Censor’s bans, these rights are fragile and can easily be taken away.
Laws to protect New Zealanders from ‘hate’ can already be found in the Crimes Act, Harmful Digital Communications Act, Human Rights Act, and the Sentencing Act. If the Government is committed to stronger deterrents, they simply need to enforce the existing laws.
Already the call for action against ‘hate’ since the Christchurch attack has resulted in people losing their jobs for making thoughtless remarks, websites being blocked, and a social media crackdown being implemented. It may also have been responsible for a man losing his life.
New Zealanders who value the freedom and liberty that underpins our society should strongly oppose new laws to ban ‘hate’. Such laws, that would enable the Police to act against anyone expressing ideas contrary to those deemed acceptable by the Government, have proven to be a disaster in countries where they have been introduced, over-criminalising the population and allowing vexatious complainants to destroy lives. Furthermore, there are major concerns that preventing those with unacceptable views from airing them openly, drives them ‘underground’, where they are likely to become even more extreme.
For the sake of our future, we must not let the radicals succeed in forcing through law changes to criminalise opposing voices, otherwise under Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand really will become a totalitarian State.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
Do you believe New Zealand needs stronger laws to outlaw ‘hate’?
*Poll comments are posted below.
*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.
THIS WEEK’S POLL COMMENTS
| Our presiding Government is without question, using the Christchurch Shooting as a political tool to move New Zealand ever closer to a totalitarian state. I share Karl du Fresne’s concern about the sentiments expressed by Dame Anne Salmond, Ms Ghahraman, and Ms Davidson, and whilst I defend their right to utter their views, I can no way endorse what I consider to be distorted views. I would hope however that I am going to be accorded the same right to continue to espouse my views which are obviously diametrically opposed to these three ladies. Legislation that seeks to restrict or remove existing rights and/or privileges, should at the very least be able to be supported or rejected by the citizenry it seeks to remove/restrict these existing rights or privileges. The TWO DAYS allowed cannot be considered democratic – but then I am sure this is exactly what our Government wants. New Zealand – Guard against Totalitarianism! | Michael |
| Hate is what the US MSM and the NZ Herald ,its editors ,journalists , cartoonists also TV1 & TV3 have been doing to president Trump since November 2016. They need to publicly apologise now for their actions. And now they want it to be a crime for private citizens to criticise Islam? Suppression of free speech leads to violence. | Bruce |
| enforce the current ones | Philip |
| We already have the necessary laws in place. | Pamela |
| Absolutely not. The New Zealand Government over the years have created racial apartheid. If the Government is serious about well being, for all New Zealanders to “love” each other perhaps they should lead from the front and ensure no race is given special privileges over another race such as council appointments or concessions for immigrants when they came here to enjoy our way of life. Creating a real democracy, where all citizens regardless of race or religious beliefs are subject to the same law would go a long way to enabling a just society. | Sam |
| Working within neighbourhood and local comunities with care and love will do more to outlaw ‘hate’ than any laws. | Margaret |
| No but there should be laws against people who tell bare-faced lies!! | Robert |
| No we need frank and open discussion! | Peter |
| NO. We don’t need stronger laws the laws we have are sufficient. What we need is stronger minds to see where this will lead. If it needs to be spelled out, look at Europe, the UK, Sweden, Belgium, Norway. Look at world history from 620AD to 1920. | Kerry |
| New Zealand is becoming more and more extreme, showing the national insecurity and immaturity. | Alison |
| Hate is written in the Koran and preached by the Imans. | Bruce |
| Banning ‘hate’ speech, depends on someone’s opinion of what constitutes hatred. Laws should be based on observable and provable facts, not viewpoints from those with their own secret agenda. Laws of this nature were common in communist countries and were used to oppress non-conforming people. Be assured it will happen here if this law is passed. | TOBY |
| What we have in place is just fine as it is. For my part I am sick to death of the word ‘colonisation’, and the phrase ‘we stole their land’ and for the fact that if anything goes wrong in the Maori world it is always the fault of the white oppressors – albeit nearly 200 years ago. Maori are getting angrier and angrier even with all the settlements – so what do they really want? Maybe it is time for them to look at their own ‘bloodline’. Yesterday has gone. Today is for now . Tomorrow is for ever. | Fiona |
| It is an overreaction to a single event | James |
| Who decides what “Hate Speech” is? As long as the words, both written and spoken, do not encourage physical violence against others, then we must allow people to express their opinions even if it is abhorrent to our own ideological thinking. There are already laws covering threats made to harm a person or people. | Martin |
| Didn’t Hitler, Stalin & Mao ban hate speech!! | Don |
| It needs a sense of cal balanced constructive evaluation | Bryan |
| The definition of “hate speech” appears to be fluid – it is a convenient label for opinions that are contrary to a particular agenda but doesn’t seem to apply to the rejoinders eg negative comments about LBGT may result in a vitriolic response which is somehow exempt from the definition of “hate speech”. | Jacob |
| Why are there so many Muslins in NZ.They never adapt to the society that they live in unless it is Muslim.Do we not learn from how they behave toward non Muslims. It is time to deport them all. | Steve |
| M. Davidson has always been an obnoxious hate-maker and it looks like G. Ghahraman is following quickly behind ably assisted by the bias of the left leaning media. Fear and political correctness have taken precedence over the truth. We need to get the moral cowards Green party plus J. Ardern out of Parliament quickly and forever. They are the infantile hate-makers who are trying to restrict our choices and freedoms. | Monica |
| includes need for adequate law enforcement | Dickie |
| We have enough law to cover this, I do not want anything to do with hate legislation. | Dene |
| We have to get rid of that woman who camouflages herself as a muslim but is on a popularity streak trying to catch more votes for her communists behaviour. She is trying make puppets of us, tying to make us yes sir no sir people | Johan |
| Who decides any part of personal utterance is hate? | Sam |
| Hate is an emotion. The idea that this can be outlawed is absurd. We already have laws against threatening speech. I am very concerned that only certain views especially around different cultures etc will be deemed ‘acceptable’. | Carol |
| The laws are already in place. | June |
| The CHch tragedy – apart from being predictable, when moslems are imported in such numbers – its a godsend to the politically-correct mythical ideology. Clearly on PC-TVNZ etc it is obvious, they are “Enjoying every penny”. Such a thing should never happen in NZ ? All wars reveal great tragedies ‘In places’ where normally are great holidays and peace.. eg the Pacific. | Gordon |
| This is a knee jerk reaction to a shocking event that had noting to do with NZers this Govt has grabbed the opportunity to in force their agenda upon law abiding citizens | Liz |
| The worry is not so much the banning of ‘hate’ but rather who defines what ‘hate’ is | Brian |
| law is already there | Gerard |
| What we need is authorities to enforce the laws we already have. | Dennis |
| We need less laws and more ‘self government’. | Jonathan |
| Some people hate others regardless. Stronger laws will not do anything to stop this. | William |
| No way we have enough laws as it is. | Clark |
| Free speech is a fundamental part of a free and democratic society | Alan |
| Freedom of speech is the corner stone of democracy. Make the laws stronger to ensure we HAVE continued free speech and democracy… | Maddi |
| No, I think there are enough laws. | Jo |
| What constitutes “Hate Speech”is impossible to define regarding It’degree opening the door to political and racial manipulation. | Anthony |
| Hate is an emotional response often devoid of any logical process. Right now I see this country I was so warmly invited into in the 1970’s, by Pakeha AND Maori alike, being led down the same path as Russia by the Bolsheviks, Germany by Adolf Hitler, China by Mao Tse Tung, Viet Nam by Ho Chi Minh, Cambodia by Pol Pot and to a lesser extent Laos by the Khmer Rouge. Where has the Aroha and Love gone? | Bert |
| Freedom of speech is essential in a democracy | John |
| DEFINITELY NOT!!! We have to be free to speak our minds. | Trevor |
| The world is full of those with a different thought/agenda opinion. if some one breaks the law then we most likely have a law to deal with it there is no room for these ad hoc loonies to find traction in our modern world. | Rob |
| sensible constructive dialogue and discussion and use of existing law | Barry |
| Hate is a factor ingrained in some humans.The only solution is in positive counciling. | David |
| Ghahranam and Davidson should be formally charged with inciting hate speech. | Graham |
| I believe that deep down there is an element of racism in this country which needs to be stamped out. It simmers below the surface. Its all too PC nowadays, over the top. We are all just people, no matter race or religion, but there are people out there that hate. We are a peace loving nation or were and its time it was addressed. | Kerin |
| ‘Hate’ speak is now being interpreted as, If you disagree you ‘hate’. This is shutting down debate, truth and freedom of speech.. | Bryan |
| We desperately need NOT to go down the path Britain is going down. Freedom and equality of rights and equality of opportunity for all! | Richard |
| Free speech for all of us let us be responsible for what we do and say | Bruce |
| There’s no “hate” as they mean it, just hype. | Janie |
| What really is needed is a voice of common sense, and honesty to cut through the simplistic repeated lies about the Treaty of Waitangi being a “partnership” between Maori and the Crown. A voice of reason is needed to temper the outrageous imposition of what our undemocratic prime minister calls “gun laws.” Sadly, the voice of reason seems to have gone from this land. | Rob |
| If people want to hate they will regardless of laws. | Laurel |
| Use the laws we have in place already. Make those laws understandable to the public good. | Brian |
| Love and hate m Yin and Yang, one is the natural opposite of the other. Better to have free speech and tolerate so called hate speech as an outlet for real or perceived grievance, than to have a ban resulting in an unhealthy corruption of trust and loyalty especially at the family level. We have sufficient law to test genuine slander and real damage, what we don’t need is law that can be manipulated as a shield to hide corrupt policy behind or worse corrupt activity masquerading as religion. More useful would be the creation of a Government activity Ombudsman that any civil servant or local body employee or contractor to govt could report wrong doings, waste, corruption or wrong practice, without repercussions. Far to much that is waste and wrong doing in government does not get intercepted early because of the misuse of the secrecy act over employees.h is used like a gagging order. This antiquated practice needs to be ditched so that we can improve the quality of tax funded administration and an element of free speech and transparency is need to facilitate that. | Richard |
| Rather we need stronger laws to protect free speech in all its variations. We must not allow ideologies opposed to free speech to gain traction otherwise we will lose any semblance of a democracy | Carolyn |
| They are being tailored to be “all encompassing”. That is interpreted to fit an agenda and allow Govt., to challenge and prosecute anyone they deem a threat to a policy/process they wish to enforce. | Bruce C |
| Laws are already in place to adequately deal with any such situation. Which makes me raise the question why some of our so called Green MP’s haven’t already been cited? | Chris |
| There are plenty or good laws already.the police just need the resources to use them against those that get out of hand | Carl |
| As mentioned there are already plenty of laws against ‘Hate’ as it is. As is usually the case, if the existing laws are properly enforced we would not need additional laws! | Graeme |
| Who determines what hate is? Everyone has different perspectives, rightly or wrongly, why can’t we just treat each other with respect, respect different opinions, different cultural choices. No one should be afraid to voice their opinion, as long as it doesn’t escalate into intimidation or violence, we should all respect each other for our individuality. Nz is full of racism, yes from white people but I find more from Maori towards white people. Why is this not addressed? NZ government encourages hate and racism they should stop blaming the NZ people and turn the mirror on themselves. | Cary |
| laws mean nothing to radicals | Steven |
| There are enough laws to cover hate speech. | David |
| Who defines what is hate and what is not? And unless the proposed anti-hate law applies to ALL RACES and ALL RELIGIONS … including Christianity – we will find everyone EXCEPT Christians is able to make complaints. | Liz |
| It would only help suppress freedom of speech further as well as add to the lefts ability to further erode the rights of New Zealanders as they are hell bent on doing. | Colin |
| The maori apartheid movement needs to be challenged and defeated.None of my maori friends are part of it. | K |
| The laws we already have are seldom used | Terry |
| Be Aware that we become what we think about…or what we are forced to think about by media,the mandate of the P.M. and those exploiting a terrible situation that was NOT of NZ or the NZ way of life and values. We are ONE people with ONE democracy and rule of law for ALL our citizens. | Bruce |
| Who are going to be the monitor police? | Kathy |
| Existing law is quite adequate | Richard |
| It would just be another nail in the coffin of free speech and being able to speak the truth | Jeff |
| Absolutely unnecessary. Freedom of speech paramount | GEETHA |
| It is an attack on our God given right to free speech | SUNITHA |
| No!No!No!No!No! | Mark |
| But only if it stops so-called maoris from hating the white population. | John |
| Discussion on the issues of the day is essential for informed public and law making. | Mark |
| No, & I’m very concerned about the way in which the prime minister & others are blatantly politicising the tragedy & exploiting it to serve their own idealistic agenda. They have taken the high moral ground in order to make NZers of European origin appear racist. | Heather |
| The left seems to only ever want one viewpoint i.e. theirs | Nick |
| We do not need a lot of things right now. As so precisely expressed in the article this is where we stand. I have to say this: Ardern’s role as a grieving ‘ Mother Mary”, being pushed by the MSM literally over the globe as a true sign of so called leadership in difficult times, is a political farce — to say the least. The true agenda is only too easy to detect: These actions are not conjured up by her and her fellow communists. They are nothing but a bunch of UN glove puppets mimicking all the moves and reading from a script. I strongly suspect that UN Socialist Helen Clark is acting as a mediating and guiding medium in this sinister agenda and simply passing on the orders from above. It is not about peoples safety and protecting against Hate speech( what ever that means is in the eye of the beholder anyway). It is about the wholesale destruction of democracy ( or what is left of it) in NZ. And the article is on the spot with pointing the finger at all these rather suspect characters like Davidson Ghamamaran and a whole regiment of anti white hate spewing MSM activists incl Antifa and their ilk coming to the fore with their devious agendas. Sure enough that they want to turn the general populace into a defenceless mass of individuals which then become easy prey for these radicals. That is why they want the guns. It is not about safety anymore!!!! Not to mention the statements made by the Mongrel Mob ,Black Power and I am sure the Head hunters are with them too on that one that they do not care about these laws. There we have another problem at hand which– despite all the finger wagging of Govt officials like Winnie ( in the poo) Peters will not go away. Their arsenal of AK 47’s and god knows what else will be nicely stashed away until the time comes to morph into storm troopers and take over this joint. This situation can only be described as bizarre and grotesque virtue signalling!!! AND— I ask myself– where is this so called political opposition in all that. Not a whisper of discontent or any constructive criticism at all. What the hell is the matter with them??. Are they totally undermined and gutted by red green minded infiltrators that by now they represent only a shell with no substance. | Michael |
| The laws are already there. If hate is a problem then we must find out why such hate is occurring. | Alan |
| I assume your question refers to hate speech. Without all of us becoming saints it’s hard to imagine outlawing hate will work. But we should be able to talk about what we feel about what is happening around us. And we should be able to state facts and call a spade a spade without someone misinterpreting it as hate speech. | Darag |
| enough laws already have enough to choke a horse and all of us along with the poor b….r,looney greens&browns know not what they do ,ban the lot and god save the rest. | James |
| The notion is ridiculous! | Angus |
| The concept of ‘hate speech’ is fundamentally dubious. It has always been used to suppress free speech. | Robert |
| Who would define “hate” How would one define the difference between, say, criticism or argumentative comment, and “hate?” | Doug |
| What is hate? and who decides? So, on the contrary, NZ needs more open, honest and truthful debate. The most dangerous position for New Zealanders is remaining in an atmosphere of ignorance about issues and ideologies. We must also understand that by limiting what people can say about issues, and media not honestly reporting issues, only serves to perpetuate lies and untruths. Two that come to mind are, man made global warming and the Treaty of Waitangi. There are others, of course, that are of more importance. As is said, “the farther society moves away from the truth, the more it hates those who speak it”. | Neil |
| Democracy is under threat with these restrictions on free speech | Antony |
| They are race based and no one is censoring M Davidson and the Green Party for her remarks or censoring gangs for their open disrespect for our peaceful society. | Sharon |
| Leftist ideology and its susceptibility to complete and utter fatuousness in ruining this country and all our prospects | Jim |
| What this country needs is a backbone. We have been a soft country for to long. The real farce referred to is that we take to long to make a decision., and as far as the gun laws are concerned, the correct decisions are being made after years of pussy footing around, just like a few other issues As for those not wishing to comply then a long jail sentence is called for. As for white supremacy , what rubbish .The vast majority of Maori are good honest citizens just like the rest of us who want to enjoy a peaceful life and not be bothered by racist extremists. Toughen up New Zealand and get your head out of the sand | Tom |
| NO. The liberals consider any one who has an opinion different to theirs as being a Hate Speaker. That’s not true. We are ENTITLED to have our own opinions, and to express them, even if the liberals don’t approve of what we say. I am NOT talking about extreme speech wherein violence is advocated. That’s different. | Joyce |
| I do NOT! We must retain our freedom of speech. We can not be stripped of those by our RED Prime Minister | Jim |
| It is too easy for those who are “offended” to claim they are victims of Hate Speech. And some people love being portrayed as victims. | Michael |
| Those on about hate speeches, should be asked to define “what is hate speech” | Geoff |
| This would be another infringement on our way of thinking and aren’t we too PC in thinking and speaking now for much sensibility to be uttered. We must keep freedom of speech as a right and not some hand wringer’s view of what is correct.. | Elizabeth |
| NEVER!!! We run the very real risk of shackling free speech to the detriment of right-wing viewpoints. | Tony |
| Free speech is a challenge already! | Libby |
| We don’t need any more laws, things are bad enough now under this Socialist Government. | Graeme |
| Hate has now been classed as anything said that is not liked or agreed with by someone else. Communism here, where we are to only say what we are told to, do by the govt., think what they tell us to, do as they say and happily believe everything we are told | Anne |
| I do not think there is a hate regime in New Zealand. I think what people get fed up with is seeing our values eroded. I have many friends from all over the world ie Muslim, Buddhists Jews etc. we are a small country and inflating our population is madness as this is what breeds racism. Also we should now press to be ONE NATION not two as we should be all encompassing of the 200 ethnicity | Muriel |
| If all else fails, blame someone else., is the song that is played over and over again. When Labour were in opposition they created the “land of rolling heads” because they had a need to blame someone, just like Maori of today. | Barry |
| No, a thousand times “No!” The whole idea of ‘hate speech’ is so horribly subjective that it is meaningless. One person’s sincerely held, objective opinion may well be another person’s hate. Such laws are inevitably the thin end of a potentially very fat, despotic wedge. | Graham |
| That would only make subversive extreme organisations form up in secret. There actions as a result of that would be more aggressive. Further, who judges what hate is? | Denis |
| Just do not listen, the perpetrators will soon realise they are are talking only to a wall and give up. | John |
| I agree we don’t need laws to outlaw hate but we do sincerely need to look within ourselves and think carefully about how we phrase words when we disagree with something. We all need to start using compassion for those worse off than ourselves and genuinely care for other people’s feelings. This can only come from within the heart of the individual not from a law of the land. | Diana |
| What is needed is Stronged and Longer sentences by the COURCT’s and none of this he is from a depreived upbringing/family/background. ONE law for all and the MAMIMUN Sentences applied every time. | Carl |
| The biggest hate speech maker is Government, “The Treaty is our founding document” (Treaty judged a “simple nullity” in NZ Supreme Court 1877 and still stands uncontested. Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 separated NZ from New South Wales to enable us an independent British colony so Maori can be protected, as asked for in writing by the 13 chiefs of Ngapuhi on 16-11-1831). Land Wars enabled stealing of Maori land and culture. (correct name is “Maori Wars”, they started by killing Whites and stealing their paid for lands in Taranaki 16 years, 1844, before troops came to the rescue of New Plymouth settlers in 1860 and Maoris crossed the Maunatawhiri Stream 3years before Gvt troops and threatened in writing to kill every White man woman and child if they did not surrender. On the official surrender of King Tawhiao he accepted the queen’s pension, same as his father, and so ended the Maori royal line and war for Maori sovereignty). Ngapuhi made a bid for gaining sovereignty through the “Flag Staff War”, during which they slaughtered their way through the township of Korerareka [Russell] and killing of all men women and children who didn’t escape. “Maori and Crown are a Partnership”! (this contravenes English law and is an impossible dream) “Maori have Governance rights”: (Royal Charter gave no such rights and illegal Treaty took them away in Article one. The Waitangi Tribunal was founded upon the English Treaty alone which states “Done at Waitangi on 06-02-1840” but wasn’t written until April and signed in the Waikato during April of 1840. Prof. Hugh Kawaru, admitted on page 663 of the 1987 Court of Appeal document between the New Zealand Maori Council and the Attorney General (CA 54/87) stating, “this Court accepted an unauthorised text by Prof. Hugh Kawharu which he called his “Attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation of the Maori text” (my emphasis) to establish “the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, which are, in fact, “the Principles of the unauthorised Treaty of Prof Hugh Kawharu” which saw the Treaty shelved and Kawharu’s “Principles” take over. | George |
| The NZ Arms laws have functioned well for the past decades. To now condemn them because of ONE incident would seem a bit OVER THE TOP. | Pierre |
| Noye that the name of the Nazi party was The National “Socialist” party, looks like it’s being brought back to life in NZ with these Labour/Green Nazis in power. | Charlie |
| We don’t need stronger Laws on hate. Beware any person that expresses an opinion outside the views of our ruling politicians. Including it would seem, non ruling Politicians. | Lawrence |
| God defend New Zealand and we surely need him now. This is turning into a Knee Jerk reaction and politics to control more of our Population. | Geoff |
| My concern about the recent ramping up of so called “anti hate laws” is that they are generated not to stop actual hateful speech but to stop advocacy groups & more importantly stop any opinion contrary to the opinions & agenda of the government. I feel this is a very real fear. | Tracy |
| the current laws are strong enough. All the governments have done for decades is make european New Zealander’s the target of hate speech from Maori radical’s that we don’t belong here .pretty hard when I was born here & my wife is a seventh generation NZer , are the govt going to something about that or continue on the path that all Europeans are white supremicist’s, because if it continues people who aren’t soon will be because of being marginalised | Nigel |
| Absolutely NOT!!!!! Theoretically we have one law for all???? If someone defames me or tells lies etc I have the right to sue them. Hate laws are ONLY for politicians to use against anyone who disagrees with the left wing ideas!!!! Look at the UK & what that country has devolved into!!!! | Dave |
| NO! Not necessary. | Jan |
| What if, just as the twin towers attack was an inside job, this one was as well. There is nothing like a crisis to advance covert agendas. | Ian |
| Of course not & for all the reasons outlined in Muriel’s excellent column. Karl du Fresne distinguishes himself also as an extremely wise journalist who belongs to an increasingly small bunch. ‘ | Rex |
| It wasn’t even a NZer that did this. There would be more hate among Maori than white NZers, they are the racists, not us. | rod |
| NO, NO, NO. A thousand times NO. | Bruce |
| Otherwise we are in jeopardy ! | Bruce |
| What is hate mail is it when someone disagrees with a comment is this hate or another point of view. we all have things that we dislike but yes if some one is trying to destroy another then this is not acceptable | Cherryl |
| We have to many Law now. We are becoming totalitarian in this country. We are becoming a Government control state. | Robert |
| Sad to say NZ is now under a socialist globalist state now the muslims have the sympathy of the Govt Shaiai law will soon rain and we will not have any freedom of speech we will be like Germany or France Sweden wake up NZ before it is to late | Russell |
| The PM is just petrified that the Muslim world will take revenge on New Zealanders – that’s the only reason | Martin |
| New Zealand needs a far better education system, going right back to early family/child discipline with a much stronger semblance of responsibility placed on any social misbehavior. Loose liberal ‘anything goes’ attitude has lead to self centered individuals running amok without appropriate restraints. | Stuart |
| We have enough laws at present for most happenings but we need stronger control and penalties for those that do such atrocities and not treated with “Kid Gloves” and a smack on the wrist with a wet Bus Ticket , also they need to lose all rights whilst in Goal. | Marylin |
| The consequences of restricting ‘hate speech’ are likely to be far worse than allowing idiots to have their say. | Ken |
| How can you outlaw the way a person feels, for whatever reason? | Chris |
| I don’t condone hate speech but I like the alternative even less. People should be free to speak their minds while refraining from using expletives and outright abuse. | Paul |
| Laws won’t change attitudes. Education is a more effective tool. | David |
| Welcome to New China. | Lesley |
| I have to tolerate the HATE speech from the likes of Gharaman & Davidson, who obviously have NO knowledge of NZ history. I have to listen to the rantings of a communist loving P.M. who will achieve her ideological goal of silencing all, apart from the radical Left if more legislation restricting free speech is allowed to be introduced. How long before the NZCPR platform is taken from us? Time is RAPIDLY running out for democracy as we once new it. In fact I think it is all but dead…. | A.G.R. |
| WE cannot change the state of minds of some who are obsessed with finding grievances where none were intended and some events have occurred which could be taken to the limit and then claimed for. That’s badly expressed but I think you may get the idea. Let’s create something to be hateful about, and then Go For It????????? Isn;t that how schoolyard bullying begins??. What we do need is some maturity of thought and the ability to reason and discuss alleged differences and other matters of controversy. Courteously and with civilised manners…..dream on? I remain convinced that some of our agitators for unrest are simply in the business of doing so at will….Official occupation? good question!. Get a job, or do something useful in the community, just for a change. There is so much that is good in the community, why try to drag us all down into a morass of made-up grievances. We all had the same start in primary school….what went wrong? Life is too short to be at war with the world, all the time. | mabel |
| truth is not hate | William |
| Definitely not! Touchie feelie social engineers have been having a field day since the tragic shootings in Christchurch mosques. Despicable. Changing the Crusaders name without due regard to the fact that Saladin – a Muslim warlord – threw the Crusaders out of the Holy Lands suggests to me game one all, social engineers get over it! Instead of allowing cultural cringe to take effect, perhaps the local Muslim community should be encouraged to form a rugby team with the help of the Crusaders – the Saracens – and both sides could be seen to be aiding integration without either side being penalised. | David |
| stronger laws to promote love are needed | Chris |
| If islam is terrorising the West today, that is not because it can, but because the West allows it to. STOP facilitating them. N OW. | Coral |
| One persons freedom is another’s hate, ban the Koran this book, and its easy reading guides, are full of “Hate” for Jews and Christians alike | Tom |
| Part-Maori racism gone mad | Bruce |
| An interesting way to pose the question as you are soliciting a particular response. I support the Govt’s changes to the gun laws. But how do you define hate. We must support any law abiding group that has settled in our land. | Gerry |
| There is already sufficient in the law to handle hate speech. | Jill |
| What’s happening to free speech.The Maoris can say what they like and get away with it but when it comes to what white people say it’s racism. Look what happened in ww2. Get rid of this nanny government | Dona |
| No, I think our laws are sufficient, but you can’t change peoples attitudes. | Jo |
| Next we will be told we can’t eat pork name changes for Maori, rugby club name change for Muslims what will be next or is it buying votes | Jimmy |
| We need to know his mindset. | Bev |
| let the HYPE settle and then we will return to normal. | RICHard |
| My husband and I read the manifesto before it was removed. It should definitely be made public as it explains so much. It must be made public as it is the right of all NZers to get every detail they can to understand this terrible tragedy. | Chris |
| Freedom of speech should mean exactly that. I bet the likes of Hone Harewera or Tarian Turia wouldn’t be captured by the so called hate speech legislation. | Geoff |
| QUICKLY EVERY-ONE EMAIL Jacinda & tell her the laws N.Z. has are excellent & N.Z. does NOT NEED ANYMORE LAWS.This is URGENT EMAIL NOW NOT DELAY. | Cindy |
| just introduce this entire editorial into all the national publications. IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO. | William |
| free speech no matter how deplorable is vital for a free society. It’s better to have deplorable ideas in the open where they can be debated and combated than drive them underground to fester and erupt later like they did in Chch | Jeff |
| One man doing the shooting. These shootings occur every day of the year in many places. Usually by Muslim. There is no need to change anything as it won’t change a thing. This is a hysterical reaction and I wonder why the reaction isn’t the same when so many NZ kids are murdered and so many woman are also murdered. Total up how many each year. And please someone shut Winston Peters up, he is making a huge dick of himself world wide. | Chris |
| I don’t think laws can change the way people feel. | Jo |
| Absolutely not. The definition of hate under the current government would include all comments made against any politician or Muslims. I do not think the Christian side of the country would make too many complaints. | Murray |
| In my observation over the time this issue of “hate speech” has been popularised, the people that support it are the ones that display the “hate”, against the people who just speak the obvious, sensible, truth. It appears the World has gone mad and common sense is no longer allowed! | Gavin |
| There are already adequate laws to call to account persons using hate speech. To the Maori activists … be careful what you wish for… much of what you spout is already hate speech, and much is incorrect. | Robbie |
| absolute rubbish | John |
| Jacinda Ardern said that we need some to combat extremism on both ends of the spectrum. She doesn’t seem to realise that she herself, is an extremist. She has created a Communist style country with her censorship, closing down of free speech and dictator like interference in our freedoms, in a remarkably short period! | Allan |
| Freedom of speech and opinion is democracy | Brian |
| Particularly to curb Maoris posting hate comments. They are where most hate comments on FB emanate. | Graeme |
| Under a law change who would define “Hate speech” | Jeff |
| As a white, heterosexual, moderately successful older aged male, I am already in a despised group for almost every comment we make, regardless of it’s factuality. To have further restrictions imposed on how we think or speak, will be something that myself and many more like me, will no doubt find hard to comply with. It might be us eventually outnumbering the poorly defended Maoris in the jail system. | Steve |
| Hate speech has nothing to do with it. It is just a call for Ideological nonsense to be expounded | Frank |
| Not in any way. Once a certain group or government propaganda machine gets to determine the only official line we are living in a totalitarian state such as Nazism and Communism produced all over the world. | Ray |
| NO WAY,IF SO IM OFF TO AUSTRALIA . | GENE |
| Definitely not. There are already laws in place which if acted upon would curtail this sort of thing. It is imperative that we must have freedom of speech otherwise I despair where our little country will be heading. It won’t be good. | Helen |
| The people promoting censorship espouse hate speech themselves and direct their ‘hate’ ideologies towards anyone that does not agree with them. | Richard |
| Laws don’t stop hate. | Tim |
| We have enough laws. | Kate |
| This is a societal issue, therefore having laws to outlaw “hate” will have the same efficacy as King Canute did holding back the tide ! | John |
| We already have laws to protect from hate. Hate can also spoken by people of all ethnicities and races not just white people. It is time for those who are becoming very militant to be called to account by the media and bloggers etc . | Gail |
| All these knee-jerk changes Jacinda Ardern is introducing are unnecessary. Kiwis are not to blame for the actions of a deranged Australian. | Stephanie |
| Current laws are more than adequate. | Andi |
| Why Is it that so many people just can’t wait to be offended | Peter |
| existing laws already cover the subject | John |
| Who is the driving force behind these oppressive ruinous views? | Peter |
| adequate laws now | Tony |
| Where are the police protection for churches in NZ, as Ive seen many threats from all over the world, to burn NZ churches, in the week after the killings, NOT 1 for mosques. | Susie |
| Ive been spat on walked into as I walk on a footpath, told to “Go home, this is our country”, a few times, by Maori | Susie |
| Ardern has to go, and take Peters with her, there’s no place for people like them in a free society | Merryl |
| Just because one Australian has jolted the country into reality of what has been going on overseas, does not require such measures that are being proposed by a government that is making laws on the hoof! | Roy |
| Was this a false flag, comments abounding on YouTube? People are questioning a number of issues. | Raewyn |
| NZ needs to ditch MMP | Dave |
| They are perfectly adequate. We have a Bill of Rights. | Don |
| Adequate laws already exist. The proposal is more about limiting the freedom of speech. | Maurice |
| Hate is subjective and personal, but can be felt collectively. There is a difference between deliberate inciting to hate and commit violence, and the ability to openly express and freely debate different ideas publicly. This freedom to do so guards against authoritarian and totalitarian domination of the individual and society as a whole. | Brian |
| What is “hate” speech? One person’s definition will be quite different from another’s. For example, there’s been a lot of banging about on hate speech against Muslims. Well we’re supposedly a nation with a Judeo-Christian heritage. The fact that we’re naturally suspicious of Muslims who’ve been at war with our lot for the control of minds and power for millennia doesn’t amount to “hate” does it?? | Alan |
| This current targeting of white people is only because the mosque attacker was white. If he had been any other colour we wouldn’t have heard a thing. These new proposals are race based in the extreme and I am sick and tired of hearing it but we all know, or should know, that this is the platform used to undermine the established way of life in New Zealand and impose the Maori way of doing things which, in itself, is racist. It won’t be long before correspondents to your organisation will be sought out and prosecuted !! | Mike |
| Who is going to define “hate ” anyway. ?? | Deb |
| Laws are already overly restrictive. | Colin |
| Who is the person to determine what is hate? We could have something like Saudi Arabia or Iran and ask for their advice. | George |
| Current law allows freedom of speech and a Bill to outlaw hate speech will inevitably lead to a diminution of that freedom and eventually a totalitarian state. | Michael |
| The definitions of hate are too easy to be manufactured by revisionist extremists. Hatred needs to be guarded against, There was hatred in the accusations of being “lied to” by a victim relative in CHCH. | Hugh |
| No! We need stronger laws to prevent the racist ranting and propaganda of certain Green Party members inciting the very hatred that they want to stop. One has to ask if they really do want it stopped or they are just plain ignorant. | Vaughan |
| Laws cannot prevent peoples thoughts and feelings! Those come from their life experiences. Banning the manifesto is just State censorship, once started, where will it end? People should be treated as mature enough to read such material and not react in an extreme way. Those few people who have such a tendency, can find any amount of hate speech on the internet from many countries, races, religions! | Hugh |
| Nor are these super-restrictive proposed gun laws needed. Police failed to properly vet the Aussie killer in providing him with a firearms licence, all under Ardern’s move to lower the cost of the Police budget, by allowing on-line applications for gun licences. Basically, Ardern’s move is the starting point for this shooting tragedy! | Carl |
| But it’s the Maoris who are the most racist now. | Rod |
| It’s not a question that can have a simple yes or no answer. For instance promoting genocide should be stopped but speaking out about Muslim attacks on their hosts should not be. Hundreds if not thousands of Muslim attacks in European cities did not result in Muslims coming forwards in their thousands to express sympathy. When 911 happened most of them thought it was the will of Alah. In stating that I would probably be guilty of hate speech but it is the truth. I personally hope Jacindas calls may bring about a change in the Muslim community but I doubt it. Cheers Tony | tony |
| There seems to be no definition of ‘hate’ hence ‘disagreement’ or any personal opinion can be suppressed. Also radicals and extremists can seek protection under the same system. | David |
| If existing laws, fully applied, are not enough to ‘solve’ the hate speech problem, then new harsher laws will not be the answer. | Carl |
| No way!! The importance of free speech is essential to democracy. Any such law could very well erode what we currently have, which works just fine!! | Sandra |
| There are sufficient laws to do this already. | Nick |
| Hate speech is free speech | Anon |
| Laws are probably too far-reaching already, altho mostly have not yet been abused. | Michael |
| Law is already adequate | Graeme |
| Hate is, in many circumstances, a totally justifiable emotion. I have no qualms in asserting my hatred of communism, of religions which decree barbaric punishments for infringements of their laws, of Hitler, Mussolini, Nazis, the perpetrators of the holocaust, child molesters and their like. Those who wish to ban hate are control freaks who wish to prevent expression of any opposition to their dogma. They fail to convince the public in open discussion so seek the power to silence any opposition to their agenda by calling it hate speech and banning it. Is it wrong for me to say, “I hate being told what to think. I hate being gagged by the left”? | Ron |
| A mature culture depends on the expressions of different points of view to be able to improve its status, this is after all what Maori class people use to express their point of view. One can’t ban another from expressing an opinion otherwise it will be a dictatorship of sorts. Oh, I just realised that we have just that. No, I do not support the killing or harming of people for the obvious reasons. One race, the human race, one set of rules please. | Leonard |
| Too many laws already. | Jack |
| We have enough laws at the moment. I detest the greedy Maori Iwi and the gormless Waitangi tribunal which is always finding something else they want compensate for. They have been compensated with billions of dollars and still they want more The ordinary in the streets does not seem to benefit from all the money given to the iwi so lets tell them to get lost the next time the come up with another claim for compensation for some alleged wrong doing over a hundred years ago. | Colin |
| As a former law student at Canterbury University I remember studying the law in respect of free speech and opinion and it was pointed out even then, in the late `70`s there was more than enough legislation, and case law to control those that were outspoken and flew against common attitudes and accepted opinion. We do not need more onerous laws. | Richard |
| Parliament is not a place for honest people | Dave |
| Leave as is | Kevin |
| I fear for this country. Soon we’ll have neighbour dobbing in neighbour, friend betraying friend. Ardern obviously approves of Stalin-type government. | Jenny |
| Most hate speech comes from the Left | Bob |
| We have sufficient laws for most everything so how do you regulate emotion? | Ian |
| Absolutely not – we do not need hate speech laws. All they would do is curtail free speech. | Murray |
| Maori sovereignty activists are very aggressive these days. But they have a receptive ear in Labour. It will be a disaster if they succeed and get hate speech laws introduced. | Andrew |
| Labour’s gun law changes are so unjust. Law abiding gun owners are paying the price for the crime of an Australian and the Prime Minister’s vanity. | Sue |
| Free speech must be protected at all costs. Hate speech laws are a slippery slope. Labour wants to criminalise the population, | Jason |
| All these knee-jerk changes Jacinda Ardern is introducing are unnecessary. Kiwis are not to blame for the actions of a deranged Australian. | Peter |