Bringing out new legislation under current circumstances, where tempers are fraught, and people are anxious due to Covid, is possibly a foolish thing to do – particularly when it is legislation concerning “hate speech”.
One can imagine tempers flaring and words said in haste between people in support of vaccinations and those unvaccinated. Do we need ‘hate speech’ legislation that fails to consider context and is framed in the subjective? The legislation is framed according to what the target subjectively ‘believes’ was the aim of the communication. All it takes is for one person to inspired to commit an act, or one person be abused or, worse still, assaulted, then those who supposedly promoted ‘hate’ by ‘inciting violence’ suffer legal consequences e.g., three years in jail, organisations fined or more.
Kris Faafoi (Minister of Justice, Immigration, and Broadcasting & Media) assures us that this would not happen. That may be so, but the matter is still subjective and a person on the receiving end of an abuse or violence may well cast around for someone to blame. The word “harry”, according to Google means, “persistently carry out attacks on (an enemy or an enemy’s territory)”. This word could easily be construed as an open incitement to violence. It is therefore of some concern that the Editor of the NZ Herald in their recent column, “We say”, alongside the “Letters to the Editor” section, titles the editorial, “How to Harry the Holdouts”.
It would be ironic if NZ’s premier newspaper was the first to be seen in court defending themselves against charges of promoting ‘hate speech’.
Dr Mike Schmidt, Sunnyhills
