The appeal, entitled "#MockingGod", is aimed at cartoonists and caricaturists from all over the world. The best drawings are to be published in the satirical magazine to mark the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attack.

On 7 January 2015, Islamist terrorists broke into the editorial offices of "Charlie Hebdo" and killed twelve people. The magazine had previously published cartoons of Muhammad.

Read More

The accusation against the Council followed its decision to grant police the power to arrest Anzac Day protesters.

The issue came to light on Anzac Day last year.

Richard Noble arrived at a service at Wellington's Pukeahu War Memorial Park holding a "recognise Armenian Genocide" banner. The war memorial is owned by the central government and no action was taken against him.

It was a different matter later that day when he took his banner to the Ataturk Turkish memorial. The memorial is situated on Council land above Wellington's south coast.

A police officer warned Noble he would be arrested if he displayed his banner there.

Between 664,000 and 1.2 million Armenian people were killed by the Ottoman - now Turkish - government between 1915 and 1916.

Their killing is recognised as genocide by 32 countries including the United States, Canada, France, Germany and Russia. New Zealand does not officially recognise it as genocide.

Police authority

Police had been granted the authority arrest by Council chief executive Barbara McKerrow.

She wrote to the police just before Anzac Day 2021, giving them long-term permission to trespass people from council land at the Cenotaph and Ataturk Memorial Park on Anzac days.

She stressed police must not breach the Human Rights Act and act reasonably.

Genocide

Genocide is defined by the United Nations as defined acts, including killing, "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

Last Thursday, Noble told the Council's Social, Cultural and Economic Committee that the permission to arrest protesters made the council "complicit in genocide denial.

"It is your authorisation, it is on your watch," he said.

Just hours later, an emailed statement from the council said it was liaising with the police about whether "any trespass delegation is appropriate and required".

The council says it supports people's rights to public protest as defined under the Bill of Rights.

All councillors were asked if the police authorisation should be altered.

"I strongly oppose this delegation given by council to police," Cr Iona Pannett says. "The right to peaceful protest against gross human rights is sacrosanct in our society and so should be rescinded."

Cr Ray Chung agrees: "I'm a very strong believer in the freedom of speech and as long as no damage is done and they're not inciting violence ... I'm fine with him being allowed to continue his protest without impediment."

Tim Brown, a paid member of the Free Speech Union, quoted: "I [may] disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade says it's important "historical injustices" like the Ottoman treatment of Armenian people were "acknowledged appropriately".

It supported "reconciliation" between Turkey and Armenia.

"For determining whether a particular situation constitutes genocide, Aotearoa New Zealand places great emphasis on the findings of international courts and tribunals."

Source

• Stuff

As videos of crowds holding up paper sheets and chanting slogans flooded the internet last weekend, Chinese-language social media posts have come to call the demonstrations in more than a dozen cities the "white paper revolution."

Authorities have since moved quickly to squelch the protests, arresting some demonstrators and sending university students home, in a bid to quickly snuff out the most overt challenge to Chinese leadership in decades.

Using blank sheets of paper as a symbol of protest is not new.

They were used during protests in the Soviet Union during the 1990s and in recent years in Russia and Belarus as well, Taiwan-based Chinese blogger Zuola told Radio Free Asia.

"In the current climate in China, you can be told off by the government for saying anything at all," Zuola said. "It's the ultimate kind of performance art protest — by holding up a blank sheet of paper, you are saying that you have something to say, but that you haven't said it yet."

"It's very contagious, so everything started holding up these blank sheets of paper to show dissatisfaction with the social controls imposed by the Chinese government, with their political environment and with [controls on] speech," he said.

Pent-up anger

The protests were sparked by public anger at the delayed response to a deadly fire on Nov. 24 in Urumqi, the regional capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, that has been widely blamed on COVID-19 restrictions.

The incident, which left at least 10 people dead, tapped into pent-up frustrations of millions of Chinese who have endured nearly three years of repeated lockdowns, travel bans, quarantines and various other restrictions to their lives.

Videos swirled around the internet showing people in Beijing, Shanghai and other cities holding the white pieces of paper above their heads, demanding an end to the strict "zero-COVID" limits. Protesters also began to call for greater freedom of expression, democratic reforms, and even the removal of President Xi Jinping, who has been closely identified with the rigid policies.

According to an unverified document circulating on social media, officials in major cities were being told to take steps to control the supply of ubiquitous white printer paper, with a major stationery firm suspending online and offline sales.

Compared with the Post-it notes that formed the "Lennon Walls" of Hong Kong's 2019 protest movement, which showcased huge mosaics of diverse messages and creative personal expression, the blank sheets of paper are a more ironic reference to government controls and censorship, analysts said.

Striking a chord

Veteran Taiwan social activist Ho Tsung-hsun said the white paper revolution had quickly spread across the country, indicating it struck a chord with a wide variety of protesters in China.

"Some people pasted blank sheets of paper next to a statue of [late revolutionary Chinese writer] Lu Xu, and under Xi Jinping slogans," Ho told RFA.

"Some students sang the Internationale in their dorms at night, while others took their guitars to sing it on the streets, with blank sheets of paper pasted next to their guitars," he added, referring to the communist anthem.

"In Wuzhen, Zhejiang, some young women sealed their mouths shut, handcuffed themselves and held up blank sheets of paper," he said.

Ho added that people quickly started using other white items following reports that the sale of A4 paper - the typical size of printer paper in China and other countries - was being restricted by the authorities.

"I'm more inclined to call it the white revolution, because people have been very creative about expressing themselves through white objects, since reports emerged online that it was now impossible to buy paper, that sales had been restricted in a lot of places," he said.

"If they restrict sales of white paper, then other white materials and objects can be used, such as white cloth or white paint," Ho said.

Some online accounts have started replacing their avatars or profile photos with white backgrounds, while social media users have used the hashtags #whitepaperrevolution and #A4revolution to show support for the protests, alongside selfies holding blank sheets of paper in the streets or posting them anonymously on bulletin boards and in corridors, cafes and parks.

‘We want dignity and freedom'

A news and commentary account that uses the handle @citizensdailycn across several social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter said the white paper movement was "the revolution of our generation."

"We want to say what they don't want us to say: We want dignity and freedom," it said in an apparent rallying call opposing controls on speech and information, as well as the restrictions of the zero-COVID policy.

The Urumqi fire has coincided with a growing realization that the circumstances in China as it relates to COVID restrictions are unusual compared with other countries, according to Zuola.

"Since the start of the World Cup, the Chinese people have been discovering that no other country is taking [the] Omicron [variant of COVID-19] seriously," Zuola said.

"People are also angry that Sinovac and other [Chinese] vaccine companies won their licenses through bribery, and over the government collusion with business that has made it impossible to roll back pandemic restrictions over the past three years," he said.

Feeling their pain

"Then there was the lone protest by Peng Lifa," he said, in a reference to the Oct. 13 "Bridge Man" protest banners hung from a Beijing traffic flyover. "All of this has been fermenting for some time; it hasn't happened overnight. There has been a sense of long-running grievance over internet censorship in China, too."

When the Uyghur residents of the apartment block died in a fire after screaming to be allowed to leave the locked-down building, everyone in China felt their pain, he said.

"They were shouting that they were all from Urumqi, that everyone was a victim of the disease control measures, and that they couldn't allow those people to be left to die in silence," he said.

Ho believes there is also a mute reference to ballot papers — meaningless in China, where all "election" candidates must be pre-approved by the government — in the use of sheets of printer paper.

The blankness of the sheets also echoes the lack of clear aim or unified leadership during the weekend's protests.

"A movement without a leader is what those in power fear the most," Ho said.

• Copyright © 1998-2020, RFA. Used with the permission of Radio Free Asia, 2025 M St. NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20036.

Therefore, when a call had to be made about whether to push through divisive and poorly-designed hate speech laws, there really was no decision for Justice Minister Kiri Allan to make - the reforms had to be severely watered down.

On Saturday, Allan announced that the Government had decided to ditch the majority of its hate speech reforms.

Of six proposed changes to the law, only one will proceed - adding the category of "religion" to groups currently protected under the Human Rights Act.

Labour lost the debate and capitulated

The Government had previously been keen to go much further than this.

There is an argument that the current definition of hate speech in the law makes prosecutions too difficult because the threshold for the courts to convict is far too high. The Royal Commission on the Christchurch Mosque Shootings argued that the current law "does not provide a credible foundation for prosecution".

The Labour Government, therefore, proposed last year a thorough reform of hate speech laws. But what they came up with was full of serious problems, provoking a backlash.

This was most vividly exposed when both the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice were unable to explain the reforms to the public.

Labour politicians couldn't promise that the reforms wouldn't lead to prosecutions, for example such as young people blaming the "Boomer" generation for monopolising housing wealth.

Unsurprisingly the public was not won over by Labour's proposed reforms.

The only authoritative public survey that has been carried out on the hate speech proposals - commissioned last year by the Free Speech Union, and carried out by Curia Research - showed 43 per cent surveyed either strongly or somewhat opposed, 31 per cent somewhat or strongly in favour, and 15 per cent neutral.

Notably, the survey showed that lower socio-economic voters were much less supportive of the reforms.

And historically and globally, this is also the case - groups with less power in society are most keen to retain political freedoms such as free speech.

The left is divided on free speech

Labour's reform efforts were dealt a further blow when so many leftwing voices came out in opposition to their plans.

The Government had probably assumed that only the political right would oppose the clampdowns on speech.

But when left-wing voices like Matt McCarten and Chris Trotter came out strongly opposed, this seriously undermined the moral authority of the reforms.

They pointed to the importance of free political speech for the advance of progressive causes and the fight against oppression.

The victims of state clampdowns on speech and politics have historically been the poor, trade unions, the left, and those fighting for change.

Nonetheless, the left was split on speech issues.

The more middle-class or "woke" parts of the left were much keener on speech clampdowns.

Green Party voters were the most supportive - with polling showing that 55 per cent of Greens wanted the reforms implemented.

Labour's decision to capitulate has disappointed liberals

Labour was therefore heading into a divisive election-year culture war that it couldn't win, and there was no appetite for such a fight.

Instead, the Government wanted to get the issue off the agenda as quickly and quietly as possible.

Hence Allan made the announcement on Saturday morning, and the Government has tried to quieten the debate ever since.

Even the Green Party has been relatively restrained in its reaction - they put out a press release noting the party's disappointment, but have generally helped Labour reduce public debate over the capitulation by not protesting too loudly.

Others have been extremely disappointed. The exclusion of gender or gender-diverse groups from being afforded the same protection as religious groups is very disappointing for journalists like Newsroom's Marc Daalder. Continue reading

The Bill, sponsored by Labour MP Louisa Wall and subject to a conscience vote, would allow the Minister of Health to designate 150-metre "safe areas" around abortion clinics from which protesters would be barred. It appears to be a unique protection accorded no other public buildings.

Officially named the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill, the legislation threatens to curtail the right of anti-abortion activists to maintain even silent, passive vigils near abortion clinics.

It has been promoted on the pretext that vulnerable patients attending abortion clinics risk being intimidated, obstructed and harassed. Yet the Christchurch-based anti-abortion group Right to Life submitted Official Information Requests to 20 district health boards inquiring whether patients or staff had suffered any such harassment or intimidation during the two years from 2019 to 2021, and none reported any.

So the need for "safe areas" has not been demonstrated and the Bill should be seen for what it is: an attempt to shut down legitimate protest against a practice that conservative Christians regard as profoundly wrong, but which is celebrated by the political Left as a defining triumph of feminism.

The Bill passed its first reading last March by a margin of 100 to 15 with two abstentions, but that's not necessarily an indication of how MPs will vote the second time around. ACT's 10 MPs all voted in favour of the Bill then, but party leader David Seymour said he had concerns about freedom of expression and wanted the Bill properly examined by a select committee.

Only three Labour MPs - Anahila Kanongata'a Suisuiki, Jamie Strange and Rino Tirikatene - voted against it. All Green MPs supported it and National was split: 19 in favour and 12 against. Christopher Luxon, who has since become the party leader, was one of those opposed.

Trevor Mallard and Chris Hipkins supported the Bill. Both were arrested for protest activity before they launched their political careers but later had their convictions overturned. They apparently see no inconsistency in denying others a right they once vigorously asserted for themselves.

The Bill is bound to become law because of its overwhelming support from Labour and the Greens, but interest will centre on whether any MPs change their position now that the Bill has been through the select committee process. The vote will be a test of their commitment to the principles not just of free speech but of freedom of assembly and religion.

Seymour wasn't the only person concerned about the threat to free speech. Even David Parker, who as Attorney-General was statutorily obliged to report to the House on whether the Bill complied with the Bill of Rights Act (BORA), conceded that a clause which would have criminalised the act of "communicating" with abortion patients in a manner likely to cause distress was "overly broad" and appeared inconsistent with BORA.

In its submission opposing the Bill, the Free Speech Union agreed with that conclusion but pointed out to the select committee that the legislation wasn't necessary in the first place because protection against intimidation or threats is provided under existing law. The Summary Offences Act, for example, makes it an offence to direct insulting or threatening words at another person. There is also a legal prohibition against harassment - a word whose definition, the union said, would be expanded under Wall's Bill.

The union went on to say: "It is not the speech of the majority that requires vigilant protection. It is the speech of the few that must be jealously guarded." The union cautioned that the traditional legal test of what is "reasonable" was in danger of becoming one of what was "comfortable".

In a spirited defence of the right to dissent, it said: "We are flummoxed by the suggestion that in a democracy, where government is created by people of different interests and beliefs, some ideas are deemed too different or disagreeable to be allowed. This suggestion is antithetical to democracy."

The Bill that's returning to the House today gives the impression of having been toned down, but it's illusory. While the clause that failed the BORA test has gone, that doesn't make the Bill any more palatable. Under the amended version, any person who "engages in protest about matters relating to the provision of abortion services" within a "safe areas" zone would be committing a criminal act.

It's hard to imagine a more sweeping provision. The new section would give activist judges - who have proliferated in the 32 years since the passage of BORA, as the union noted in its submission - licence to convict people for doing nothing more menacing than silently praying on a public street anywhere within 150 metres of an abortion facility. This can only have a chilling effect on the right to protest.

Regardless of their views on abortion, those who believe in free speech and the associated right to protest should take careful note of how MPs vote. National and ACT MPs, in particular, will be watched to see whether their votes align with their parties' supposed commitment to freedom.

• Karl du Fresne has been in journalism for more than 50 years. He is now a freelance journalist and blogger living in the Wairarapa region of New Zealand.
• First published by Karl du Fresne on 15 February. Republished with permission.

The proposals themselves seemed to have stirred up strong reactions among people, including among some Christian churches and societies.

Depending on what YouTube's algorithm has decreed you should enjoy watching, some of these reactions might be stirred by videos of so-called free-speech advocates rejecting "hate speech laws" as infringements upon the sanctity of the "free marketplace of ideas".

By criminalising communication based on the emotions it intends to bring about, it is alleged that the Government's proposals would stifle people's ability to freely exchange and communicate ideas.

In support of this stance, the quote (misattributed to the philosopher Voltaire) will often be heard: "I may hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This line, however, seems to overlook another serious challenge to the operation of the free speech "marketplace": hatred itself.

Hatred posits that individuals, or the groups to which they belong, are enemies or threats which should be opposed.

The effect is a definitive conversation-stopper. "I hate who those people are, but I will defend to the death their right to say whatever they want," said no one ever.

For Christians, there is an additional dimension to this issue.

As the opposite of Christian love or charity, hatred towards others not only causes problems for interpersonal relations; according to the New Testament, the person who hates is in darkness or in a relation of hatred towards God (1 John 2:9 and 1 John 4:20).

Judging others, we are warned, entails that we should expect to be judged in the same way by God because all such judging involves projection: attending to the sawdust in another's eye and neglecting the plank in our own (Matthew 7:2-3).

In a short essay on "Hell as Hatred", the Christian mystic Thomas Merton imagines hell as a place wherein all the occupants are trapped in a perpetual cycle of self-projection, in which they "know others hate what they see in them: and all recognise in one another what they detest in themselves."

The Gospel of John offers a powerful illustration of how only a speech-act of love breaks through this cycle of judgement and hatred.

In John 8:1-11, Jesus is presented with a woman caught in adultery. Instead of joining the hostile group of male accusers in condemning the woman they surround, Jesus states that "he who is without sin" should cast the first stone.

To this, the woman's accusers leave the scene without speaking.

What begins as a confrontation, act of judgement, and threat of death towards the woman, is dissolved by Christ pointing out the hypocrisy underneath such judgement.

It also powerfully illustrates our earlier observation about the inverse relationship between hatred and "free speech": hate-driven accusations do not initiate conversation, and so must also end in silence.

While it remains to be seen how the legislative proposals may be applied (or misapplied) within the courtrooms of this country, the Government's proposals are in principle ones that free speech advocates — and particularly those within the Christian faith — can and should support.

• Dr Greg Marcar is a research affiliate with the Centre for Theology and Public Issues at the University of Otago.
• First published in the ODT. Republished with permission.

The Prime Minister, who had just unveiled a memorial plaque at Christchurch's Al Noor mosque, added that she couldn't understand why there would be resistance from other political parties. "I don't see why there should be, and so that's probably a question for every political party, but that's certainly our view."

After a firestorm erupted last week with the announcement of a new hate speech offence to be included in the Crimes Act that carries a maximum penalty of three years' jail and a $50,000 fine, her display of confidence last September seems not so much naive as completely deluded.

The fiery reaction was entirely predictable for anyone who understands New Zealanders' passive-aggressive relationship with authority. While most will tolerate stringent restrictions on their freedom in times of emergency — such as during war or at the height of a pandemic — a marked hostility to being told what we can say or how to behave lurks not far beneath. The furious opposition to Helen Clark's anti-smacking law in 2007 should have given Ardern at least a tiny clue as to how her hate-speech proposals might be received.

Firm opposition to the proposed changes — which would expand the list of protected groups to include not only religion but possibly also sexuality, gender, age, disability and employment status — has come from across the political spectrum, ranging from John Minto on the left to Richard Prebble and Family First on the right and numerous other critics in between.

It would have helped immensely, of course, if both Ardern and her Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, had been able to answer questions put to them by television journalists about the scope and implications of the law changes but both politicians — faced with perfectly reasonable queries about real-life situations — failed miserably.

Ardern was adamant initially that political opinion would not be added as a protected category but later admitted it could be.

The fact neither politician had taken the time to inform themselves fully about changes that have been under discussion for several years represents an extraordinary dereliction of duty — as well as being deeply insulting to voters who are concerned about having fundamental freedoms curtailed.

Ardern has realised she is in trouble. As Act leader David Seymour put it, she is "twisting and turning" on hate speech so much "she could almost qualify to represent New Zealand in gymnastics" in her attempts to get safely out of harm's way.

Her first line of defence is the classic Pontius Pilate manoeuvre of shifting responsibility away from herself. If she isn't identified as the driving force in the push for a law change, it will seem much less like a personal failure if the intense public reaction forces a backdown.

Interviewed last week, she said: "The reason we're having this debate is because the Royal Commission of Inquiry [into the mosque attacks] said to the New Zealand government, ‘You need to include religion.'"

It is a sentiment she has repeated in Parliament but the Royal Commission's report was released publicly on December 8 last year while new hate speech laws were promised within weeks of the mosque attacks in 2019.

Ardern also campaigned on extending legal protections for groups that experience hate speech before last year's election in October.

As well as trying to shift responsibility to the Royal Commission, Ardern appears to be looking to guarantee a way out for herself by declaring that such a law change requires bipartisan support.

Speaking to RNZ, she managed to roll together her principal lines of defence in a single — albeit convoluted — sentence: "So I would reach out to those across all sides of the House and say, ‘Look, given we have been called on to do this, I'd be very interested in what their view is and what they would see as being a way to make sure that we are bringing in those who were at the most extreme end of an experience.'"

In that interview, she acknowledged bipartisan support was needed to ensure any legislation of this kind was going to endure. And in answering Judith Collins in the House, she reinforced that view by saying: "Ultimately, I want these provisions to last as long as the last [hate speech] provisions, which are broadly similar and were introduced 50 years ago."

Yet Ardern knows already — and has for some time — that National and Act are implacably opposed. Last week, David Seymour described the moves as "cancel culture on steroids"; in April, he began a series of free speech meetings the length of the country to oppose any expansion of existing restrictions; in his Address in Reply last November he pledged to gather signatures for a citizens' initiated referendum to overturn any law that mandated new restrictions on free speech.

Last September, after Ardern's visit to the Al Noor mosque, Collins was emphatic she wouldn't support any further loss of freedom of speech. "I'm very clear that our human rights legislation already deals with what needs to be dealt with."

She also promised last week that National would repeal any such law if a government she led came to power, and described the debate as "a total cluster, frankly, and the government needs to stop this now and back away".

Her justice spokesman, Simon Bridges, slated the proposals as "Orwellian".

So, if Ardern knows there is absolutely no chance of bipartisan support across Parliament's divide, why is she continuing to run this particular line? The only plausible explanation for a Prime Minister holding an outright majority is that she is looking to avoid humiliation over a backdown by blaming the lack of support by the Opposition.

In what looks like another move to ease her path away from enacting hate-speech legislation, Ardern is also emphasising that the proposals are a "discussion document". Presumably this is an attempt to make the proposed law change look more tentative than many suspect was intended before the extent and intensity of opposition were revealed.

If Ardern had wanted a thorough discussion of the proposals with a genuine intention to listen and respond, she would have made sure that the window for the public's input was much wider than the six weeks allowed.

Giving the public only until August 6 to make submissions on the changes came as a surprise to Canterbury University law dean Ursula Cheer. As she told RNZ: "I would have thought for a very complex consultation and proposed changes to a law like this, it would be a bit longer. I would have thought to the end of August at least."

The fact that the opportunity for public comment is so short — and indeed that the public has been kept in the dark for so long — appears to be no accident. The Ministry of Justice has obviously not been as sanguine about the popularity of a law change as Ardern professed to be when campaigning.

The ministry has been quietly consulting "affected groups" — including the Muslim community — for some time, in a process driven behind the scenes by the Human Rights Commission, which has long been in favour of more restrictions on speech.

As the Ministry of Justice put it: "In 2019, the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission met with groups that are most likely to be targeted by hate speech to better understand their experiences and views." Of course, they are the very groups most likely to be firmly in favour of a law change.

In March 2020, the Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite said that hate speech was a "tricky thing" to navigate. One of the ministry's aims was to "have a conversation about this and avoid protests."

Kibblewhite was reported as saying that the Human Rights Commission had led some of the work around a law change alongside the ministry as it wanted the conversation to happen away from the political fray — given that a proposed law change could easily be derailed with so many strongly held views.

The kind of strongly held views, in fact, that have erupted into public view this week and which look as if they might derail the Prime Minister's cherished plans after all.

• Graham Adams is a journalist, columnist and reviewer who has written for many of the country's media outlets including Metro, North & South, Noted, The Spinoff and Newsroom.
• First published on Democracy Project. Republished with permission.

The inscription translates as "I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise".

Who were the wise?

The wise were scientists and philosophers who thought that knowledge could be acquired through observation of phenomena, engaging in inductive reasoning to make general statements about the phenomena, and then moving through to increasing higher levels of generality to form what we now call theories.

From theories testable hypotheses could be derived which the "wise" would seek to falsify or disprove in experiments.

Hypotheses not falsified (disproven) added to the credibility of the theory (or modified it in certain ways).

This became "the scientific method" and its application has helped all branches of science to progress.

Aquinas knew this was wrong; the church said so and taught so.

Knowledge did not come from reasoning; it came from God. And God said that the sun went around the Earth whatever the observations of "scientists" might say to the contrary. They were blasphemers and heretics, people whose views had to be expunged from society lest they corrupt more people.

Fortunately, we don't accept Aquinas's theory of knowledge anymore (nor his cosmology).

However, since at least the 1930s we have seen much pseudo-science; findings that seem to have the trappings of genuine inquiry but on close examination are not fully in accordance with the principles of the scientific method.

The late Professor Sir Karl Popper assailed the propagators of such work as perverting science and thought their aims were ideological, not scientific.

He reserved particular contempt for Marxists and their fellow travellers who wanted to use science for propaganda, not for education or learning, or to promote freedom (see The Open Society and its Enemies).

Misuse of science and intellectual falsehoods in the name of "truth" and "for the greater good" undermined democratic values and open debate, he argued.

These days there is a lot of "this is the official line, which shall not be questioned, and is indeed unquestionable because the science is settled". For ‘‘science'' equally read ‘'history" or ‘'truth''.

I don't think that nutters and people who are plainly wrong should be allowed free rein to peddle complete nonsense which could alarm the public, but I am not sure I want to be overly vigorous about stamping out their views. Continue reading

• John Bishop is an experienced journalist across all media, business, economics, politics features, and profiles. He also has an interest in travel and writes at www.eatdrinktravel.co.nz

She promised to include religion under legislation that deals with hate speech and discrimination.

"In a modern New Zealand, everyone would agree no one should be discriminated for their religion.

"It makes sense that we add this to the suite of other things, we say it is just not OK to discriminate people over", she said.

Adern's promise came yesterday during a visit to Al Noor mosque to unveil a memorial plaque in memory of the March 15 attacks and was responding to the push for change by the Imam Gamal Fouda.

The policy announcement was not planned, but a response to Fouda's view that outlawing hate speech would prevent another attack like the one at Al Noor mosque.

"Freedom of speech becomes hate speech. Hate turns into hate crime as we have seen at the 15th of March", Fouda said, taking the opportunity to push for change.

"I'd like to see a new law in New Zealand and I think New Zealand has seen a lot and we went through a lot. The blood of those people shouldn't be forgotten," he said.

A clampdown on hate speech will not go ahead under National and ACT.

"I believe ultimately in freedom of speech with certain limitations that we've all accepted," said National leader Judith Collins.

"The promise of tougher hate speech laws shows the danger of a left-wing government to our fundamental rights and freedoms", said ACT leader David Seymour.

"Hate speech laws are divisive and dangerous, turning the debate into a popularity contest where the majority can silence unpopular views using the power of the state", he said.

New Conservative leader Leighton Baker warns that the first freedom society loses is when a society loses its freedom of speech.

"The only real definition of hate speech is inciting someone to commit an act of violence, and we have laws to protect against this now.

"We must be able to discuss ideas in a free and democratic society", Baker said.

Currently, there is no specific hate speech law in New Zealand.

Hate speech is covered by The Human Rights Act on the grounds of colour, race or ethnicity - not religion.

Ardern confirmed Labour intends not stopping just with religion and promises to include sexual orientation, age or disability.

Sources

• TVNZ
• Newshub
• Scoop

"The safe zone provision was always the most marginally supported," Little said.

The abortion law bill was going through the committee stage on Tuesday evening and into the early hours of Wednesday.

ACT leader David Seymour had proposed an amendment to remove safe areas from the bill.

His proposal was voted for in two parts.

The first vote was to have the definition of Safe Zones removed from the bill.

It was rejected by a margin, 59 votes to 56.

The second vote was on removing all the legal provisions for safe zones, including the ways in which the police could administer them.

Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley passed it on a verbal vote.

So the definition of 'safe area' became redundant in the law.

Green MP Jan Logie immediately asked for clarification on what had happened.

"Can I just check the vote and how it evolved around David Seymour's SOP (Supplementary Order Papers) and what the outcome of that vote is... I just wanted to check and to see if I needed to change my vote".

Tolley advised it was a "vote on the voices" and the "amendment was agreed to".

Logie sought leave for a personal vote, but this was rejected.

The proposed safe zones would set up a regime where a protest against abortion could be barred within 150 metres of clinics.

Seymour was concerned that the safe areas violated wider principles of free speech.

MPs who are for the safe zones have indicated they may try to re-introduce them.

National MP Nikki Kaye said it would be up to the House to decide whether or not to revisit the issue.

Green MP Jan Logie said she was looking at options to reinstate them.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz

Little wants the review to focus on "whether our laws properly balance the issues of freedom of speech and hate speech".

He seems to want a bob each way on this question.

On the one hand, he has defended free speech - the right, within very broad limits, to say whatever we wish - as being a fundamental principle of free society.

On the other, he has claimed "current law specific to hate speech offences [is] very narrow".

In particular, he has asked whether it is right "that we have sanctions against incitement of disharmony on racial grounds but not, for example, on grounds of religious faith".

There is an obvious point of difference between ethnicity and religion in respect of Little's question.

Ethnicity is an element of personal identity; it is something one is, rather than something one believes.

Religions, on the other hand, like political doctrines, are ideologies.

It would be especially dangerous to go down the road of protecting ideological beliefs from criticism on the grounds that those holding them might be offended.

Israel Folau recently lost his lucrative rugby career over comments that homosexuals are condemned to hell when they die.

Predictably enough, his comments were labelled hate speech. But those comments were made on religious grounds and while, no doubt, most modern Christians are accepting of homosexuality, the Bible condemns it as a sin in both the old and new testaments.

It's easy to see from this example how hate speech legislation protecting both sexuality and religious beliefs could end in a quagmire of legal absurdity: Folau might have been prosecuted for hate speech against homosexuality, while simultaneously claiming those criticising him were themselves guilty of hate speech against his religion.

More broadly, is the question of what should be protected as free speech, and what should be condemned as hate speech, really one of balance, as Little has asserted?

I argue it is not. Continue reading

• Dr Michael Johnston is Associate Dean (Academic) in the School of Education at Victoria University of Wellington.
• Image: Stuff

"We will condemn this horrifying act of violence as extreme and out of the ordinary, we will come together as a nation and hold vigils, and we will try to move on from this tragic incident," says Lamia Imam.

But she thinks that unless some very difficult actions are taken "vigils and speeches are useless. We are just waiting for the next massacre".

"We need policy changes from the government - to media outlets to social media platforms.

"We need to decide what our values are and if anti-immigrant racist sentiments align to those values."

If they don't, she says such sentiments should not be given a platform.

Though Facebook New Zealand, Google and Twitter all issued statements hours after the attack that they were working with the New Zealand Police to take down content associated with the attack, the content had by then spread far and wide across the web.

"If we want to change hearts and minds, we must show what the alternative is," said Imam.

Editors have to be willing to give up on "clicks", political leaders have to be willing to reject "racist votes", social media platforms have to forgo revenue.

The New Zealand Government has sought "urgent" advice from the State Services Commission about how its agencies use social media platforms.

Many New Zealand businesses said they are reassessing their use of social media channels for advertising.

The CEOs of three of New Zealand's largest broadband providers, Spark, Vodafone and 2degrees, have published an open letter to the major social media providers.

Following European proposals which include taking down material within a specified period, they suggest proactive measures and fines of up to $80m for failure to do so.

Dr Paul Ralph has published an open letter to Facebook.

He lists the role social media play in terrorism and hate speech.

Ralph goes on to suggest what the social media platforms could and must do to stop providing extremists with a platform to spread their message.

Lamia Imam was born in NZ and grew up in Bangladesh and the US before attending the University of Canterbury, majoring in Political Science and Law. She currently works as a Communications Manager in Austin, Texas.

Paul Ralph is a senior lecturer in computer science at the University of Auckland.

Source

• newsroom
• .stuff.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• newstalkzb.co.nz
• noted.co.nz
• Image: newstalkzb.co.nz

In the time of Trump, it means we might worry that when America gets a little crazy, the rest of the world might go mad.

In years past, New Zealand's geographical isolation provided a measure of natural immunity to foreign viruses.

Today, however, Aotearoa is wired into the 24/7-365 news cycle of traditional and social media.

For better and for worse, the vices of the polemical back-and-forth take-no-prisoners rhetoric of the fact-check versus fake-news culture wars are always a click away.

Earlier this month, the tides of incivility washed up on our shores with the arrival of Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux.

In their wake came a series of storms in Auckland and at Massey University over Don Brash, and at Otago over the student magazine Critic Te Arohi.

From top to bottom, New Zealand has been drenched in torrents of indignation and recrimination.

In a perverse irony, the rhetoric of both sides plunges down the self-righteously slippery slopes of reductio ad fascism arguments.

Whether you or I want to prohibit or permit such speech, we're all "Nazis" now.

Of course, we are not all Nazis in the literal sense. Even if we were all Nazis in the rhetorical sense, none of us would be.

If this sneer applies to everyone, it loses its polemical force.

Even so, resort to such arguments forces us to pause and reflect.

Reductio ad fascism arguments are in bad taste and bad faith. They trivialise the experience of those who suffered under real Nazis. They demonise the existence of those whose differences we suffer only because we have to.

Worse still, they neutralise legitimate criticism of genuine authoritarianism and bona fide racism.

Corrosive attitudes

Now, my aim is not to litigate these specific events, or to adjudicate these particular speakers.

My concern lies with two corrosive attitudes lurking beneath and behind these stormy controversies.

The first is a seething form of selfishness that goes something like this. "I can say whatever the hell I want. And damn the consequences."

This attitude is non-partisan and non-sectarian. It is in evidence across the ideological and religious spectrum.

No group is immune from having members and moments that indulge in free speech absent any concern for the accuracy of its content or the hostility of its form.

Such self-indulgence divorces liberty from responsibility.

It ignores basic political and legal frameworks of free speech, all of which admit reasonable restrictions on public expression.

We need not wade into the legal minutiae of documents like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The spirit of these laws is more relevant than their letter.

Sucker punch or sparring speech

One emergent principle in these frameworks is the "right" of reply.

I place "right" in quotation marks, because, strictly speaking, reply is more of a guiding principle than a binding precept.

The idea, roughly, is this.

In cases of potentially offensive or inflammatory public speech, one test for permissibility is whether or not there is opportunity for response.

If there is, then there is a modest presumption in favour of permission.

If not, there is a slight presumption in favour of prohibition.

Whether or not this principle becomes the law of the land, it seems to me to be a reliable rule for our conduct especially in universities where freedom of inquiry and pursuit of knowledge are prized.

We can rephrase this principle as a simple question: "Is my speech a sucker punch, or is it sparring?"

To ask this question is neither dumbing down on vigorous debate nor chickening out from righteous dispute. (I, for one, will resist and protest racism in all its bullhorn and dog-whistle forms.)

This question asks not less of us but more.

It asks that even when we remain unpersuaded by our opponents, we remain engaged in the perhaps futile effort to persuade them.

It asks that we aspire not to knock them out but to draw them in.

This brings me to the second worrisome attitude that often comes packaged with the first.

It is a scathing form of rage that goes something like this: "I not only rebut your opinion or action as deplorable. I rebuke your person as despicable."

Such rebukes have their place. Certain persons merit this response.

But those who do are the honest-to-God Nazis of the world. In a society like ours, they, thankfully, are few and far between.

Liberty - responsibility

Whatever we think of Southern, Molyneux, and Brash - or those who would silence them - surely we should think better of them than we do of Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmann.

Self-indulgent contempt may win us followers 140 characters at a time, but it will taint the character of our leadership each and every time.

Civil liberty requires civic responsibility.

Freedom of expression must be freed from expressions of contempt. Or, in the words of Christian scripture, "Speak the truth in love".

• Derek Alan Woodard-Lehman is a lecturer in theology and public issues at the University of Otago.
• First published in the ODT. Republished with permission.
• Image: YouTube

In August, an online referendum was held that contained a double question: "Should AUSA disaffiliate the ProLife Club and ban any clubs with similar ideology from affiliating in the future?"

The legal advice presented to AUSA found the referendum question could be considered biased or leading because it was not possible to answer each of the questions separately.

AUSA president Will Matthews said if the referendum question had been split into two questions it would have been a different matter.

"The way it was written is unconstitutional, so we have declared it void."

ProLife New Zealand (PLNZ) spokeswoman Mary-Anne Evers said the club welcomed the news.

"The whole process baffled me a little, to be honest," says Evers. "An unsubstantiated, anonymous question was submitted to be included in the AUSA referendum shortly before voting opened.

"The club had very little time to respond to it, or to engage students in real discussion on the matter.

"Then when the results came out they were "provisional" because they weren't sure whether they were allowed to do what they were doing. It just didn't seem like due process.

"They may not agree with the views that our clubs hold, but at least they recognise our right to free speech and don't try to suppress views they disagree with."

Evers hopes that the continued presence of Prolife Auckland at the University will "keep the conversation happening".

She notes that "women on both sides of the debate have a lot in common.

"We both see difficult situations that women face, including unwanted or difficult pregnancies, or gender discrimination (often tied to motherhood or potential motherhood).

Source

• Scoop
• Stuff
• Image: Stuff

Professor Timothy Garton Ash, a professor of European Studies, made this comment while warning that universities must "hold the line" against the "salami slicing" of free speech.

At a festival in Wales, he was promoting his book titled "Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World".

He noted threats to the tradition of free speech in universities coming from above from the Government and from below in the form of students' sensitivities.

Professor Garton Ash said UK universities are now encouraged by counter-terrorism legislation to block even non-violent extremists from appearing on site.

This comes in the form of a "prevent duty" aimed at stopping radicalisation of vulnerable students.

At the same time, a number of UK universities now pledge to create a "safe space' for their students.

This is inspired by similar policies in the US, in order to protect students from language or behaviour which could be considered offensive or threatening.

But Professor Garton Ash said he had noticed an increasing trend for a small number of offended individuals to be able to shut debate down on campus.

He described this as a "subjective veto act".

With regard to "prevent duties", he said historic figures like Marx, Hegel, Darwin, Rousseau and "definitely Jesus Christ" could be considered "non-violent extremists" today.

"The Home Office wouldn't want [Jesus] preaching on campus.

"This is a real threat I think to free speech and one we have to fight back against."

While student concerns must be listened to, universities have to fight to hold the line, he said.

A Home Office spokesman said that the law states that, in complying with prevent duties, universities must have particular regard to their duty to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom.

"In many cases, complying with the prevent duty is as simple as ensuring there is an effective chair and a strong opposition voice," the spokesman said.

In November last year, Oxford University cancelled an abortion debate after female students complained they would be offended by a man being on a panel.

Sources

• The Telegraph
• Daily Mail
• Image: Theology21.com

He was commenting on an item included in a display of T shirts in the Canterbury Museum.

The exhibition even came as a shock to its creator, Dani Filth, founding member, lyricist and lead screamer of Cradle of Filth.

"Oh my gosh yes," Filth said in a recent interview on the phone from his home in Suffolk.

"I still find it very confusing, strange and weird that they decided to put it in an exhibition in a museum in New Zealand."

"We had no idea," he says.

Filth is now 41 years old.

The T-shirt was made when he was 19.

"The premise behind the shirt, remember we were young, ... it was more of an anarchic thing more than anything else."

"The religious side of it was obviously there to stir up a bit of controversy at the time but when those shirts were first introduced we were just a small band starting out."

In the interview he paused for a moment before uttering the word "silly".

The T shirt was described in RollingStone as the most controversial shirt in rock history.

It contained blasphemous statements and offensive imagery.

On February 17th, an unidentified woman stormed into an exhibition of T-shirts at the Canterbury Museum in Christchurch, New Zealand, and proceeded to black out the perspex barrier covering the display with spray paint.

At the time of the exhibition Catholic blogger Brendan Malone said in a blog post that Canterbury Museum's decision to hold the exhibition was "irresponsible" and would "result in unnecessary harm" to the public.

Catholic Bishop Barry Jones also criticised the controversial t-shirt. "Anglican and Roman Catholic nuns enjoy wide respect and the misogynistic message on the t-shirt is appalling," he said.

Family First planned to lay a complaint with police about the "highly offensive" display.

"The museum should show some respect to the many families who will be horrified and offended by this and remove the offensive material," national director Bob McCoskrie said.

"Sinking to these low levels is an insult to many families."

Canterbury Museum director Anthony Wright said the shirt was a small part of a large exhibition examining the garment's place in popular culture.

'When you do a show like this you deal with the edges of our culture and society. There are inevitably going to be some items and themes that are going to be offensive to some."

"It's there because it is a valid part of an overall story about a whole cultural movement. We want to tell the whole story without unduly censoring things."
Source

• stuff.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• rollingstone.com
• Image: image.spreadshirtmedia.com

On Sunday, two gunmen, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, allegedly shot and wounded a security guard near the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest at Garland, Texas.

The two gunmen were subsequently killed by local police.

Media reported that the men attended a mosque in Phoenix, Arizona.

A front-page headline in L'Osservatore Romano decried the artwork at the event as "blasphemous".

The accompanying article stated that "ultraconservative European politicians" were expected at the exhibition, with its portrayals of the "prophet Muhammad".

Geert Wilders, a right-wing Dutch politician, was a keynote speaker at the event in Garland.

Speaking of the "need to approach the religious experience of the other" with a respectful attitude, the unsigned article in L'Osservatore Romano criticised the exhibit's "provocative intent, almost wanting to throw gasoline on the fire".

The event, organised by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), featured a "draw the prophet contest".

AFDI's Pamela Geller maintained her event was simply a celebration of free speech.

On her blog soon after the attack, she declared that "this is a war".

The AFDI, which also goes by the name Stop the Islamization of America, is designated a hate group by civil rights organisation the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Heidi Beirich, director of the Intelligence Project at SPLC, which tracks hate crimes, said "Speech has consequences, though that doesn't mean that people don't have a right to speech."

"Of course the violence is unacceptable and outrageous, but that doesn't excuse Pamela Geller," Ms Beirich said.

"She's still responsible for the hate speech she's propagated."

This was a sentiment echoed by Muslim community leaders and local residents.

"The depiction of the prophet in the worst of ways is asking for these crazies," local lawyer Khalid Hamideh said.

Muslim leaders in North Texas condemned the gunmen's actions.

The incident came four months after gunmen in France killed 12 people in the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in what was said to be revenge for its cartoons.

Sources

• L'Osservatore Romano
• Catholic World News
• Vatican News
• The Guardian
• Yahoo News
• Image: Fox4News

The declaration, proposed by the group Reporters without Borders (RSF), came after French religious leaders last week backed free speech, but stated it had to be exercised responsibly.

The issue comes in the wake of last month's terrorist attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and similar incidents which resulted in 17 fatalities.

The RSF declaration challenges faith groups to pledge unreserved support for free speech or face public pressure to do so, the Tablet reported.

"Nobody can impose his concept of the sacred on others," stated the declaration.

It admitted some people might be offended by free speech, but this cannot justify limiting any opinion, even an irreverent one.

The RSF initiative was supported by a committee of intellectuals who back France's laïcité policy of church-state separation.

President of the French bishops' conference Archbishop Georges Pontier of Marseille said the Church does not sign declarations it has not helped draft.

"This declaration seems to suspect religions of being not very active in supporting free speech, if not actually opposed to it," Archbishop Pontier said.

The archbishop said it was regrettable the text was addressed only to religious leaders and not other civil society personalities.

In January, the French bishops sent two of their number to the massive protest in Paris a few days after the shootings.

On the day of the Charlie Hebdo attack, the bishops issued a statement expressing their sorrow.

But in the first issue of Charlie Hebdo after the killings, its editorial said the magazine laughed that the bells of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris had rung in their honour.

"We would like to send a message to Pope Francis, who, too, was ‘Charlie' this week: we only accept the bells of Notre Dame ringing in our honour when it is Femen who make them tinkle," the editorial stated.

Femen is a radical feminist group which had staged a topless protest in Notre Dame Cathedral.

Sources

• The Tablet
• DICI
• Catholic Herald
• Image: NBC News

"The city's subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented," Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. "The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions." Continue reading