Now, three years on from that initial flurry of online activity, and those who oppose the legislative changes for oppositions sake are once again overreacting like crazy!
Not only do we have National and ACT MPs going for broke on Twitter at the moment like a pack of crazed lemmings, we also have Martyn Bradbury freaking out on TDB that changing the hate speech laws will somehow mean the end of civilisation itself.
On Friday, The Daily Blog reported:
And it begins – why you must fight woke free speech criminalisation! Use your voice before the Government takes it away!
Fresh from attempting to cancel a movie they haven’t seen, the emerald stormtroopers of the woke are coming for you with hate speech legislation designed to punish thought criminals and word crimes.
Well firstly, the people trying to cancel They Are Us aren’t actually the Government Bomber. In fact the ‘emerald stormtroopers of the woke’ as he puts it include many National Party MPs. So let’s get some facts straight eh!
Speaking of political boundaries, here’s Judith Collins using similar evocative language to try and drum up fears about what the proposed law changes might mean to the average New Zealander.
Today, Newstalk ZB reported:
National Leader: Proposed hate speech laws an attempt to control New Zealanders
The National Party leader told Mike Hosking it's an attempt to control New Zealanders.
"They have gone full throttle far left and woke. And the problem is is that if that they don't want to hear from the people, they don't want to hear from the people."
The Government is accepting submissions on the proposed changes here.
Collins said that these proposed laws are bizarre and unncessary, especially with the worst Covid vaccine rollout in the OECD.
So we’re basically not meant to do anything else while Covid is around? I mean this is almost as silly as Bomber thinking that people who are speaking out against free market capitalism are going to be convicted for inciting violence under the proposed law.
Today it’s Qanon, Nazis and Trump Incels being targeted, tomorrow it’s radical environmentalists and critics of free market capitalism who will be getting punished, so don’t cheer too loud.
Bomber doesn’t seem to understand what the Government’s proposed law changes actually mean. And just like National and ACT, he’s once again relying on the mainstream medias misreporting and the publics subsequent ignorance to try to win the argument.
So in light of this, here are a few thoughts on the six proposals:
1. Changing the language in the incitement provisions in the Human Rights Act 1993 so that they protect more groups that are targeted by hateful speech
There is no question that more groups should be explicitly covered by the Human Rights Act 1993, particularly trans, gender diverse and intersex people. In fact anybody who argues against this worthwhile change is likely to be a bigot!
2. Replacing the existing criminal provision in the Human Rights Act 1993 with a new criminal offence in the Crimes Act 1961 that is clearer and more effective
It is also worthwhile to make a specific law that’s properly enforced. There is no question that people who are being discriminated against should have better ways to protect themselves from abuse. Anybody who argues against this change is likely ignorant about the ineffectiveness of the current laws, perhaps because they've never been discriminated against themselves.
3. Increasing the punishment for the criminal offence to better reflect its seriousness
Increasing fines and sentences is perhaps the most tricky aspect of the proposed changes. Sure, holding people found guilty of criminal incitement to account would require a punishment that is comparative to their crimes. But where exactly that threshold should be set when future events of incitement aren’t known yet is practicably impossible.
Unfortunately trying to assure the public that judges will find the right balance before the law is fully written has allowed the attention seekers a platform to say pretty much whatever they want to about it.
But despite their fear-mongering and personification that Jacinda Ardern’s hate speech laws will destroy New Zealand, it’s patently clear that an increase in penalties is justified. Obviously criminal incitement is a serious crime and therefore should receive hasher penalties, because the current deterrents are obviously not working.
4. Changing the language of the civil incitement provision to match the changes being made to the criminal provision
Proposal four is really just a technicality to reduce inconsistency between the criminal and the civil provisions.
5. Changing the civil provision so that it makes ‘incitement to discriminate’ against the law
There is no question that the law needs to be changed, but these changes must not impede anybodies right to free speech particularly when we’re talking about political or religious beliefs.
6. Adding to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to clarify that trans, gender diverse and intersex people are protected from discrimination.
Of course the law should be clarified so that no at risk group is left out of the legislation.
Having actually read the proposals, it’s difficult to know what Bomber and the right wing are going on about? They certainly haven’t let their lack of understanding stop them though.
I read the terrorist’s manifesto and I don’t recall him referring to Trans Allies or gender identity, so why criminalising the misuse of pronouns is being mooted as a response to white supremacy terrorism is utterly beyond me!
Talk about conflating the issues. Obviously the changes are worthwhile because the current law isn’t broad enough in its scope to ensure certain at risk groups of people are covered. But Bomber is also wrong that these proposed law changes won't have the potential ability to stop terrorist attacks such as that seen in Christchurch on 15 March 2019 from occurring.
There is no question that the terrorist's sick beliefs were largely fostered and propagated online. Well the proposed law changes look to specifically deter and target this type of propaganda.
I for one would have much rather seen someone like Brenton Tarrant spend a few years in jail for inciting violence than see him kill 51 innocent people.
In fact it’s that necessity that pretty much trumps all of Bomber’s blog so far. However what really makes his argument fall down is that he initially starts off by implying that there's nothing to warrant any law change, which he then completely contradicts:
We’ve all seen the woke public shaming and cancel culture lynchings erupt in our social media feeds, like violent 1930s street fights as various factions attempt to mutilate the other for dominance.
The bewildering venom from this schism makes feuding Drug Cartels look tame.
So hate speech isn’t serious but is worse than ‘feuding Drug Cartels’ then Bomber? I mean honestly dude, just try to be a bit more consistent with your click bait eh!
