Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:25 pm Post Subject: Hate Speech Legislation - Some Implications
The Hate Speech act recently approved by the US House of Representatives is extremely worrisome. Many of the alternative news websites that we rely on for the stuff that does not get reported by the main-stream media, are likely to vanish. Where the US goes, can Australia be far behind?
In New Zealand where an inquiry into 'hate speech' is being conducted by the the Government Administration Committee, the US development could tip the balance in the favour of those who wish to limit freedom of speech in this country.
Quote:
Inquiry into Hate Speech
The Government Administration Committee is to conduct an inquiry into 'hate speech'. The terms of reference for the inquiry are to consider:
Whether or not further legislation to prohibit or restrain hate speech is warranted.
Whether censorship of material that vilifies certain groups would be a justified limitation on the rights and freedoms affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
An appropriate threshold test for prohibition or restraint of hate speech.
Whether any prohibition or restraint of hate speech or hateful expressions would be a justified limitation on the rights and freedoms outlined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
The steps taken by the international community to control hate speech and hateful expressions.
Our main concern is that legislation such as that mooted for New Zealand may be initiated on a 'reasonable' basis but end up after a time as something else entirely, especially where interpretation by officialdom is involved. Hate Speech can easily evolve into Critical Speech in these times of global war on a word. A law against inciting hatred against minorities and ethnic groups can evolve into it being illegal to criticise, or even speculate about, such people no matter what they've been involved in (think Mossad), and could even further evolve into it being illegal to criticise the government. Unlikely? Don't believe it, experience in other parts of the world has demonstrated the extremes of restrictions to free speech (and common sense) that can result from such laws. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that forums like this one could become illegal or sanitised beyond usefulness. You could forget about any investigation into the concept of pre-Maori civilisation, for example...
Here's a thoughtful article from Mediawatch on the subject:
Every New Zealander who cares about free speech should read this committee report, along with every newspaper editor and book publisher concerned about his or her right to publish contentious opinions. It shows just how casually some politicians in a supposedly liberal democracy can propose dismantling rights painstakingly acquired over decades, even centuries.
The report will have been welcomed as a victory by the gay activists who have driven this issue. They will see it as a rebuff to the Court of Appeal which thwarted them two and a half years ago. What they perhaps fail to realise is that everyone in a democratic society benefits from the right of free speech gay activists as much as fundamentalist Christians. And that a state that allows fundamentalist Christians to be silenced can just as easily suppress the views of homosexual rights groups.
I would like to finish with a question. In determining whether something should be censored, the Chief Censor is required to decide whether it is injurious to the public good. The question here is a simple but important one: Can an opinion be injurious to the public good? The select committee and the Chief Censor obviously think so. I would argue that suppression of opinion is potentially far more injurious in a democratic society. To quote the British newspaper columnist Bernard Levin: "Any legally permissible view, however repugnant, is less dangerous promulgated than banned."
An interesting opponent of Hate Speech legislation is dear little "I'm not grumpy!", Peter Dunne and his United future party.
United Future has three policy bottom lines for any negotiations re his party's support for any government coalition - no change to the Families Commission, no change in the legal status of cannabis and no moves to introduce Hate Speech laws. No mention of a Hate Speech policy on the United Future website though - strange....
Although it may seem obvious that Pete and his religious-right partners want to continue to incite hatred against homosexuals and cannabis law reformers and such like, the reasons for their opposition may go deeper than that, much deeper. Take a look at this:
Quote:
U.S. State Department says New Testament is 'Anti-Semitic'?
By Rev. Ted Pike
9-13-05
Evangelical lovers of Israel would never believe that our government could consider them anti-Semitic. Yet the U.S. State Department's new "Department of Global Anti-Semitism" now defines anti-Semitism in a way that makes Bible-believing Christians into anti-Semites. Here's how:
The State Department's 40-page Report on Global Anti-Semitism cites a recent example of "anti-Semitism" in Poland. "...the pastor of St. Brigid Church in Gdansk told parishioners during services that Jews killed Jesus and the prophets." (p.22) What's wrong with that? According to Jewish leadership: plenty. Jewish leaders say it was this millennia-old accusation that ultimately led to the Holocaust: to millions of Jewish "Christ killers" being herded into the prison camps and gas chambers of Auschwitz, Dachau, etc. "You can't get any more anti-Semitic than that!" they protest.
IS THE NEW TESTAMENT "HATE LITERATURE?"
Yet, think about it. Isn't that accusation exactly what Mel Gibson portrayed in "The Passion of the Christ?" Isn't that exactly what the New Testament teaches in passages too numerous to list here? Scripture says evil Jewish leaders, helped by Jews gathered at the Feast of the Passover, collectively pressured the Romans to crucify Christ.
From the Book of Acts alone come powerful indictments of the Jews. "...let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified." Acts 2:36. "Men of Israel...this man...you nailed to the cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death." Acts 2:22,3. "Men of Israel...Jesus, the one whom you delivered up...you disowned...put to death the Prince of Peace" Acts 3:12-15. "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye had put to death by hanging him on a cross." Acts 8:30.
These words - that the Jews killed Jesus - were spoken by the pastor of St. Brigid Church in Gdansk, Poland. If he is anti-Semitic according to the US State Department, then so is the New Testament! So are you as a Bible-believing Christian!
I must admit that regarding Peter Dunne as a potential ally in any campaign of opposition to restrictions to free speech is a very very strange concept... :shock:
