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 former rugby union and rugby league international has signed with Southport Tigers, who play in Gold Coast's A-grade rugby league competition, and will be sponsored by Palmer's Mineralogy company.

However, Queensland Rugby League will have to approve Folau's registration for him to play in the competition.

The 32-year-old returned to rugby league last year with French club Catalans Dragons after stints in AFL and then, more successfully, in rugby union. St George Illawarra made a bid to bring the former Wallabies star back to the NRL earlier this year before abandoning the move after intense backlash.

Read More

They're protesting about a proposed law requiring leaders of all faiths to translate their sermons into Danish and submit them to the government.

The new law, is primarily aimed at radical Islamic groups, but will affect all churches.

The country has more over 270,000 Muslims. Sermons in the mosques are generally preached in Arabic.

Denmark's government says the law - which is scheduled to be reviewed this month at the Danish Parliament - is necessary to curb the growth of Islamic extremism.

Some commentators say although the measure is aimed at getting the preaching of jihad out of mosques, Europe's political correctness means a broad, politically correct net is scooping up preachers of all religions.

Church of England Bishop Robert Innes (pictured) wrote a letter to Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen expressing his alarm over the measure.

It places an "overly restrictive" bind on freedom of expression, he wrote.

"I am sure it comes from a genuine concern about the security of the state and the monitoring of all religious minorities who might be perceived as a security risk.

"I share the ambition of the Danish government to ensure safety and security and the desire that all religious organizations in Denmark conduct their act peacefully, but to require translation of sermons into the national language goes too far.

"In a democratic society I would hope the government would strive for better cooperation with religious organizations than hastily resorting to legislation interfering with their freedoms.

"This is a first which is why it is so important we find a way to address and encourage the Danish government to find another solution. Because my real concern is that if the Danes do it other countries may copy," he noted. "That would be a very worrying development indeed."

Innes says incremental changes in the law are causing minority groups to be treated with increasing suspicion.

Leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church have also written to the Danish government about the changes affecting religious liberty and freedom of speech, saying: "… we are risking that the Danish State neglects the recognition of non-Danish speaking congregations as being part of the ecclesiastical and cultural life of Denmark.

"It would cause great harm, should the many Danish congregations abroad face similar action from foreign states. Passing the bill would furthermore damage the reputation of Denmark in the rest of the world."

An Anglican chaplain in Denmark says she is concerned about sending translated sermons to the government.

"Any sermon depends on Biblical text and context; the scripted and unscripted; the dynamic between preacher and congregation … in a translation, how would nuance, meaning and emphasis be carried?"

Other European churches voicing concerns about the proposed law include the Lutheran World Federation, the Roman Catholic Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Union, and the Conference of European Churches.

Source

• CBN
• Image: St Michael's in the Gard

Which is all the more embarrassing when you remember how he formerly introduced himself to Arnold Schwarzenegger as Australia's next Prime Minister.

But, incredibly, not only did all of the media pundits get the election result wrong, but so did our nation's leading betting agency.

Because according to The Australian, the only other people to lose as much as The Australian Labor Party, were Sportsbet. As Brighette Ryan wrote:

It has been an expensive federal election night for betting agency Sportsbet, which has had to pay out both Labor and Liberal punters.

On Thursday, the agency opted to pay out all bets on Labor, in a strong signal the race was already over.

Over $1.3 million was paid out to those who threw money behind Labor and its leader Bill Shorten, with someone walking away with a $128,000 win.

Sportsbet were obviously not alone in suffering from a bad case of The Bradley Effect.

The illustrious Peter van Onselen predicted that Labor would win 86 seats, whereas Waleed Aly went with a more conservative 81.

Although, he somewhat presciently alluded to the victory of Trump in 2016 when pressed with the question as to whether or not there was any way for Morrison to win: "Waled Ally predicts @australianLabor to win around 81 seats".

But before analysing the decalogue of reasons why Labor lost, we should all honour Rowan Dean—our leader at The Spectator Australia—who was the only media pundit that had the courage and foresight to predict a Coalition win.

As Dean tweeted all the way back in April: "49-51 As I and I aloen have said for the last six months, Scott Morrison can and will win this election."

Unfortunately, Dean never really explained why he was so sure about his bold prognostication. But what follows are ten reasons why Sportsbet—and every other media polling agency in the country—got it so wrong. Continue reading

• Image: Courier Mail

Both ACT party leader David Seymour and Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki appear to agree that people should be allowed to express their opinions. But they appear to have travelled from opposite directions to arrive at the same conclusion.

Seymour says that what is insulting or offensive to one person may be seen by another person to be an honestly held and freely expressed belief.

He says freedom of speech is extremely important and politicians shouldn't be introducing any legislation that means people could be criminalised on the basis of opinion rather than fact.

So presumably Seymour does not object to Tamaki's tweeted opinion that, if anyone says any part of the Bible is hate speech, "This will be war".

"How dare secular, liberal, left-leaning atheists openly attempt to legislate our founding faith, Christianity or the Bible as hate speech."

Protecting religious groups
Seymour says the crimes act already makes it clear it is a crime to incite another person to commit a crime or threaten someone with violence.

But justice minister Andrew Little says the law that prohibits the incitement of racial disharmony does not apply to religious faith.

He has asked his ministry to work with the Human Rights Commission to look into whether New Zealand's laws sufficiently balance issues of freedom of speech and hate speech.

Protecting people from religious groups
In the past, Ardern has also been reluctant to say criticism of others by religious groups should be controlled by law. In 2018, when Israel Folau first expressed an opinion about LGBTQ, she told Newshub "I disagree with him but I'm very careful about how I categorise someone's speech."

Source

• newshub.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• Image: radionz.co.nz

In their recent newsletters and press releases, they say that the wake of terror attacks, governments often consider curtailing a number of civil liberties.

"With that in mind, the Coalition has invested time into following Government announcements and calls for action from political parties and NGOs."

They have raised concerns about;

Banning of websites

Spokesman Dr David Cumin said the FSC didn't challenge the original decision of ISPs to block websites.

"They are after all private enterprises, and concerned customers have the option of using a competitor."

"However, a threat to free speech has emerged with the Government's intervention.

Governments don't just ‘ask kindly' for companies to block content - any request from those with regulatory power comes with an implicit threat of ‘…or else'."

Chief censor's decision

Last weekend the chief censor announced that the terrorist's 74-page manifesto is now classified as ‘objectionable', making it a crime to hold, share, or quote from.

Anybody caught with the document on their computer could face up to 10 years in prison, while anyone caught sending it could face 14 years.

Cummin says: " This is a dangerous precedent that seems to fly in the face of the rights of New Zealanders to seek understanding about the motivation behind the terrorist's evil acts."

He said most New Zealanders will have no interest in reading the rants of an evil person.

"But there is a major debate going on right now on the causes of extremism.

Kiwis should not be wrapped in cotton wool with their news and information censored."

"New Zealanders need to be able to understand the nature of evil and how it expresses itself."

Source

• freespeechcoalition.nz
• freespeechcoalition.nz
• scoop.co.nz
• apnews.com
• Image: thedailyblog.co.nz

In June she told the Herald on Sunday she would like a "duty of care" clause added to the Bill of Rights Act, so people could be held accountable for their use of free speech.

Accountability would depend on their influence and status in society.

"A duty of care would place a legal obligation on a newspaper for example or an individual [such as] a professional sports star requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

The Listener spoke to several prominent academics who argue against new laws to regulate hateful speech.

Professor Ursula Cheer, dean of law at the University of Canterbury and author of the authoritative Burrows and Cheer Media Law in New Zealand, believes there are already appropriate remedies in the Human Rights Act, and she thinks it's right that the threshold for legal action should be high.

Auckland University of Technology history professor and free-speech advocate Paul Moon is emphatically against tougher restrictions. on what we can concerned about the proliferation of extreme comment on the internet, but doesn't believe the solution lies in stricter legislation.

Massey University sociologist Paul Spoonley questions the need for tougher hate speech laws.

Comments that some people deem to be hateful, he says, may be seen by others as quite necessary and truthful.

In February last year, Human Rights Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy called for a review of hate speech law, while asking police this year to start recording hate crime statistics to combat racism.

In response, 27 high-profile New Zealanders, including Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Don Brash, Sir Bob Jones and Dame Tariana Turia, wrote an open letter warning politicians that freedom of speech was under threat at our universities.

Source

• www.noted.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: nzherald.co.nz

"The gay community want to be free to express themselves, to be accepted no matter what they look like or what they wear, but Brian better shut, he has no right to voice what he believes, and we'll never accept him with his greasy hair and tailormade suits. Read more

"The Catholic Church has learned through dark periods in our own history that banning free-thinking and persecuting those with different views is a shameful and retrograde step for society," said Bishop Patrick Dunn, NZCBC President.

In a referendum 1609 voted in favour of the ban and 1034 voted against the ban. AUSA has a total membership of around 15,000.

The referendum also questioned whether clubs with a "similar ideology" should be banned from affiliating in the future.

"A student-led group dedicated to advocating on ethical issues surrounding abortion and the welfare and support of women should be a welcome addition to the campus life at any University," said Bishop Dunn.

"New Zealand is a multi-faith, multi-cultural, multi-race community and our Universities ought to have the capacity to engage in meaningful dialogue on ethical and conscience issues."

Bishop Dunn went on to say, "I call on all Auckland University students who are committed to human rights and the protection of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion to encourage their representative body to reconsider this narrow-minded and regressive step."

Co-president of Prolife Auckland Jelena Middleton says that the outcome is "unjust, and legally dubious as it means that a group of students is being punished simply for exercising their legal right to peacefully express legitimate ethical views."

"What makes this process all the more frightening is the total lack of transparency, and the clear violations of natural justice that it has entailed" says Middleton.

"The referendum process was enacted by a totally anonymous person, the question was vaguely worded, there have never been any grounds given for what prompted such a drastic action, and we were only given a few days to prepare and present our case before the voting opened."

"It's doubtful that such an unjust process and outcome would be tolerated in any other sector of a free and open society like New Zealand. We are now seeking legal advice about the legality of this action and how it may have breached the NZ Bill of Rights."

Results of referenda that do not directly affect AUSA's financial or administrative processes are automatically binding.

However, the decision will not be finalised until AUSA had sought legal advice regarding the concerns raised by members.

Adam Jacobsen writing for Stuff says that AUSA affiliation was largely a symbolic acknowledgement from the student community that it wishes to be associated with that particular organisation.

Jacobsen said that the Pro Life Club would still be eligible to access university space and distribute information on campus, set up a club stall during orientation week, and receive funding.

But the pro life club has been informed that any application they now make for funding will be opposed by the AUSA on account of the new disaffiliated status.

Middleton said they will also have to pay more for rooms and resources controlled by AUSA now than they would have before when they were an affiliated club.

Source

• Supplied: Amanda Gregan Media Advisor New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference
• Stuff
• Scoop
• NewsHub
• Image: Times Higher education

This is the opinion expressed by the Methodist Church in its submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights last Thursday.

The Bill was introduced in Parliament by the Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum last year.

It was sent to the Standing Committee on Justice, Law and Human Rights in June after the second reading.

Under the heading "Defamation", clause 24 of the Bill says that "Any person whose words or actions defame, demean or undermine the sanctity of Parliament, the Speaker or a committee commits an offence and is liable on conviction."

Methodist Church vice president Apisalome Tudreu said the proposed provisions would make it an offence for the electorate to hold their elected representatives and their leaders accountable and this was a basic requirement of democracy and good governance.

Tudreu said the church participated because of its role and that was to serve the needs of the society.

"What is considered thre­a­tening and defamatory sho­uld be left to the laws that apply to others," he said.

The chair of the committee hearing submissions, the MP Ashneel Sudhakar, said the clause would only protect the institution.

"It doesn't mention anywhere that you cannot criticise the government or cannot crticise the members of parliament," Sudhakar said.

"The words of clause 24 are clear and all it's saying is that you cannot criticise wrongly the institution of parliament, the speaker and the committees. That's all that the clause mentions."

The Citizens Constitutional Forum wants clause 24 removed. "Section 24 will further dissuade people from exercising their rights to critique Parliamentarians' role and their performances for fear of being sued for defamation by Parliament," said its Chief Executive Officer

Source

• fijitimes.com
• newswire.com
• radionz.co.nz
• Image: newswire.com.

"Some years ago I had a wonderful opportunity to visit Pakistan at a time when their Blasphemy Laws were causing real hardship. In contrast, we are fortunate to live in our land where freedom of speech and freedom of belief is enshrined into our laws and where blasphemy laws seem archaic," he said.

"The Stephen Fry case seems a nonsense when what he is struggling with is the same struggle many Christians experience, namely how to reconcile a God of love in the face of human suffering."

"Each of us has to work that out in our own way. It is when we can grapple with the great questions of spirituality and life with mutual respect for the opinions and beliefs of others that we grow as a healthy community."

Lowe has joined a chorus of church leaders and politicians who agree that the law is archaic.

However the ACT party's attempt to table a bill that would repeal New Zealand's blasphemy law has failed because it is not seen as an immediate threat to anyone.

"I don't think anyone is lying awake at night thinking 'good heavens, I'm a target and I'm liable for a blasphemy prosecution", said Labour leader Andrew Little

"The time to do it would be in the Statutes Amendment Bill, a part of a routine procedure for Parliament. I don't think we have to waste Parliament's time outside the usual order of business."

The Prime Minister Bill English agrees, "We have a process for cleaning up law that has become redundant, and that's the normal process it will go through."

Labour MP Chris Hipkins tabled an amendment to the Statutes Repeal Bill to delete the crime of blasphemy.

Seymour's attempt to have the law repealed followed news reports that the British actor Stephen Fry was being investigated by Irish police on a complaint of blasphemy.

He says he's forced the government's hand.

"I'm very happy, it's the right thing to do," he told reporters.

"Previously they refused to include the change in the Statutes Repeal Bill, now they seem to be prepared to do it... that means blasphemy laws can be gone by the end of this month."

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• radionz.co.nz
• radionz.co.nz
• Image: newstalkzb.co.nz

Bernie L Hart, who is an atheist, said he applied for the number plate because he wants to spread his views about religion.

In his opinion, there's no way anyone can prove or disprove a person's claim to be God.

He wants others to know this.

Hart who was denied the right to use the IM GOD number plate in Kentucky, said he'd been used it in Ohio for "a dozen years".

The Kentucky state transportation department said he couldn't have the number plate because other drivers might find it distracting and in bad taste.

They also said it might cause "confrontations".

Hart said it's his right to be allowed to choose his own number plate and display a personal message.

Other drivers are allowed to do so. Some display religious messages.

"There is nothing obscene or vulgar about my view that religious beliefs are subject to individual interpretation," Hart said.

Instead, being allowed to express his views is a matter of freedom of speech.

He is suing Greg Thomas, who is the Kentucky state transport secretary because he is being denied freedom of speech.

The Kentucky arm of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation have filed lawsuits to argue for Hart's rights under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment prohibits laws that prevent freedom of speech.

Source

• Independent
• The Guardian
• Image:TOK Thoughts blog
  

.

Nai Lalakai editor Anare Ravula, The Fiji Times Editor-in-Chief, Fred Wesley and The Fiji Times general manager/publisher Hank Arts, the Fiji Times Limited.

They are charged with inciting communal antagonism in relation to letter to the editor published by the Fiji Times in its supplemental iTaukei language newspaper, Nai Lalakai on April 27 this year.

A fourth man, Josaia Waqabaca, the author of the letter also appeared in court and was charged with the same offence.

The charges were made under the Crimes Decree, passed by the military government in 2009.

The letter accused Muslims of invading foreign lands, and killing, raping and abusing women and children.

It also warned that some muslims had found their way into Fiji's parliament.

It was written by Josaia Waqabaca, who was jailed after the 2000 coup, for his role in a plot to kidnap the then military commander, and now prime minister, Frank Bainimarama.

The Decree's section 65 prohibits any communication that is likely to incite dislike, hatred or antagonism of any community.

The April 27 letter includes this paragraph:

The content read:

Ko ira na Musulomani era sega ni taukei kei Viti, sai ira nai lawalawa oqo era a curu botea na vanua eso ka dua vei ira ko Bangladesh mai Idia, kara vei vakamatei kina, kucuvi na nodra yalewa, ra vakararawataki na gone me yacova sara nira sa lewa ka sa nodra tu edaidai

Translation:

"Muslims are not the indigenous of this country. These are people that have invaded other nations, for example, Bangladesh in India, where they killed, raped and abused their women and children. Today they have gone to the extent of having a part in the running of the country".

The four were required to provide sureties of a $1000 each and were released on bail.

They will reappear in court on August 31.

The maximum penalty for the charge is 10 years imprisonment.

In 2013, the newspaper was fined $US 170,000 for contempt of court, for publishing an article that called into question the independence of Fiji's post-coup judiciary.

Source

• radionnz.co.nz
• Fijisun.com.fj
• fijitimes.com
• Image: fijisun.com.fj

The Humanist Society of New Zealand have taken issue with the Act.

They agree there is a need to address the problem of cyberbullying.

However, they contend that an unintended consequence the Act has been the creation of an additional de facto blasphemy law.

Mark Honeychurch, The President of the New Zealand Humanist Society, says it "not only flies in the face of human rights, but the introduction of yet another law that gives special privileges to religions is unfair, unpopular and unrepresentative of our society, where over 40% of New Zealanders identify as not religious, making this our country's largest single belief group."

"Because 'serious emotional stress' is so subjective, it is almost impossible for anyone to asses before they publish, whether someone, somewhere will take offence," said Jeff Hunt writing in the Humanist Newsletter.

After the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office in January the Humanist Society of New Zealand, and the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists called for the scrapping of New Zealand's blasphemy law.

They said the law protected religions, rather than religious people from discrimination.

Blasphemy libel was listed under the Crimes Act 1961 as being punishable by a year in prison, but it's only been used in one prosecution, in 1922, and that failed.

The humanist groups wanted the law repealed.

They said it would emphasise the importance placed on free thought and speech, and would allow New Zealand to criticise blasphemy laws in other countries without sounding hypocritical.

Source

• humanist.org.nz
• Scoop.co.nz
• radionnz.co.nz
• Image: pamelageller.com

"The leader of the world's Roman Catholics makes his point about inequality and injustice by washing poor people's feet," he said.

He was speaking at the Canon Media awards last Friday.

Pankhurst was one of the judges in the category of Cartoonist of the year.

He said it is not wise to be deliberately offensive. "Charlie Hebdo almost invited retaliation, but fear of disturbing the sensibilities of Muslims needs to be balanced against upholding a free press."

"Freedom of speech is a fundamental value that has to be defended. It goes hand in hand with tolerance and fairness and decency," said Pankhurst.

"Islam in its purest form is a peaceful religion that has contributed much to civilisation."

"We could all do more to recognise that and support and befriend Muslims in our community."

"But if Islam is being perverted and terrible deeds committed in its name, a cartoon Mohammed waving a sword can be a devastating statement, a far more arresting condemnation than any amount of political or editorial huffing."

"If this is the century of jihad, and it is looking depressingly that way, then we must square up to that, just as we did with totalitarianism."

Aboard the papal plane, Jan 15, 2015 during an in-flight press conference Pope Francis spoke on the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, saying that freedom of expression has limits but no one has the right to kill in the name of God.

"Killing in the name of God is an aberration against God. I think this is the main thing with freedom of religion."

"You can practice with freedom but without imposing or killing."

He said that every person has not just the freedom or right, but also an obligation "to say what he thinks" to build the common good.

"We have the obligation to freely have this liberty, but without offending."

"You cannot offend or make war, kill in the name of your religion, that is in the name of God," the Pope told journalists.

"But if the freedom of expression is used to offend, he said, one can expect a reaction."

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• CNA
• Image: img.rasset.ie

It will impose licensing for journalists and a narrow definition of a "journalist" and potentially bars foreign journalists.

Journalists are expected to fall into line with the government's media definitions and foreign reporters could be blocked at the country's borders.

Parliament passed the law on May 6 that impacts on the press and rights of freedom of speech.

The President, Taur Matan Ruak, has 30 days to examine the law and has the right to veto it and send it back to Parliament with any concerns he may have.

The law is available in Portuguese, which only a limited number of the Timor-Leste population understands, and the indigenous national language Tetun.

Source

• Pacific.Scoop
• Image: Shannon Gillies/PMC

Researchers say 51.6% of the 153 charities surveyed feared losing contracts or grants as a result of criticising government actions.

Nearly a third of the charities thought debate was silenced or actively silenced by Government.

The report states that:

"The relationship between the state and civil society was altered from 1984 with the rise of the neo-liberal contract state.

This "market liberal" model of interest group politics "...depicts interest groups as self-interested, "vested" interests, seeking special advantages or "privileges" for themselves which are contrary to the public interest and to the long term prospects of the country"

"This view" the report says, "is found in the speeches and writings of New Zealand's political architect of neo-liberalism, Roger Douglas.

In one speech he noted that interest group lobbying served only to slow down the pace of economic reform.

Source

• Radio New Zealand
• Victoria University of Wellington
• Image i.telegraph.co.uk

He was reacting to a comment made by the Catholic Archbishop of Suva, Peter Chong, which, he said, "clearly had the potential to inflame public opinion."

Bainimarama said that it was very disappointing that someone of the Archbishop's stature does not appear to have read the provisions of the Constitution in their totality.

"We fear he is relying on the advice of some who may be deliberately misleading him."

Chong is reported to have expressed concern about the provisions of the Fiji Constitution because it says that "religious belief is personal."

The Archbishop said although religious belief or faith was a personal matter, it also had a public nature.

He said the government had somehow silenced the church and deprived the people of the right to pursue religious truth in the public sphere.

Chong said as a church leader the issue was of major concern because it would limit the church on a personal level, thus rendering it voiceless and giving it no opportunity to make contributions to society.

Chapter one of the 2013 Constitution states religious liberty, as recognised in the Bill of Rights, is a founding principle of the state.

It also says that religious belief is personal.

Bainimarama has denied there is any curtailment of freedom saying, "Nowhere in the 2013 Constitution is there any limitation on expressing religious belief publicly, individually or in a group."

He said the Constitution protects the right of all Fijians to freedom of expression in all aspects of community life, including in the practice of religion. This right is only limited to prevent the spread of hate speech or incitement to violence.

"What's more, the fact that the Archbishop is able to freely discuss the role of religion in public life, as he did in the media today, contradicts the very premise of his argument."

Source

• Island Business
• The Fiji Times
• Image: entiregospel.com

Internet companies are a different breed. Because they traffic in speech — rather than, say, corn syrup or warplanes — they make decisions every day about what kind of expression is allowed where. And occasionally they come under pressure to explain how they decide, on whose laws and values they rely, and how they distinguish between toxic speech that must be taken down and that which can remain.

The storm over an incendiary anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube has stirred fresh debate on these issues. Google, which owns YouTube, restricted access to the video in Egypt and Libya, after the killing of a United States ambassador and three other Americans. Then, it pulled the plug on the video in five other countries, where the content violated local laws. Read more

Sources

• Somini Sengupta in The New York Times Sunday Review
• Image: GoodinBlogging

Somini Sengupta covers technology issues for The New York Times.

The way the church's influence plays out varies in different traditions. There is a subtle difference between NZ and Australia, reflecting their differing histories. But there is a dramatic difference between both countries and the USA. The Catholic influence in the Democratic party is a thing of the past, and the recent Republican President Bush managed to claim over 50% of the Catholic vote, but could not deliver on his pro-life agenda.

Read Brian O'Connell's piece in the Marist Messenger

Brian O'Connell is the editor of the Marist Messenger