The Hate Speech issue has been pissing me off for some time and given National's appointment of a 'Spokesman for Fascism' it is particularly relevent. It also gives some background into how the inquiry came about. It should be read in the context of the debate around Political Correctness and the right wingers attempt to shut down debate simply by labelling things politically correct. See my past posts here, here and here, and Just Left's very good summary here and here.
As a candidate it was extremely frustrating to have the National, Act, UF, and NZ First candidates saying the (Labour) government was going to ban ‘hate speech’ (which in most cases was actually code for saying ‘you won’t be able to say homosexuality is yuck anymore’) especially when you opposed and knew Labour had no intention of introducing such legislation and the inquiry was launched in part because of a National MP and a religious group from Matamata in his electorate.
And now we have United Future acting like they are the big defenders of free speech in their coalition agreement with Labour: “they will not support any legislative initiatives to place limits on freedom of expression through so called “hate speech” laws”.
It just so happens that no such legislation was planned and it wasn’t in Labour’s manifesto. Too many Labour MPs opposed such legislation (including Tim Barnett) for it to go anywhere. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t have been an inquiry to look into the issues surrounding hate speech (and more importantly speech that encourages violence against people on grounds of their religion, sexual orientation etc). It's a shame National's "Eradicator" is trying to shut that debate down. I’ll be interested to see what the final report says.
At the time it was launched the Government made it clear that it wouldn’t support restrictions on freedom of speech. Phil Goff wrote: "The point of the inquiry cannot be to stop expression of hateful opinion, even if we utterly reject that opinion".
I oppose restrictions on free speech. Let people say stupid things. Let people say hateful things. Brian Tamaki’s march on parliament and his hate filled words did more to win over MPs and the ‘mainstream’ public than anything the campaign for civil unions ever could. The answer to hateful speech isn’t punishing those people or preventing them for saying it; it’s promoting even more free speech. It’s better that the voices of fringe right-wing religious groups are expressed publicly and can be attacked.
The success of the feminist, queer, civil rights, and ingenuous movements have largely been because of their freedom to speak out. It’s been the forces of the reactionary and conservative that have attempted to ban the free speech and descent of progressive movements. Language is power, and the dominant male, white, heterosexual discourse didn’t want their power diluted or shared (the still don’t - hence the appointment of Mapp as "The Eradicator"). It would be foolish for the left to work towards restricting the very thing that has led to the liberty and freedom of progressive voices.
Some background: The decision to initiate an inquiry arose from a discussion of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. The Government Administration Committee had received some submissions that said hate speech should be included (including a submission from a religious group from Lindsay Tisch's electorate who were concerned about hate speech towards them and the lack of protection for religious groups). The Committee didn’t think Hate Speech should be included, but instead decided to initiate an inquiry into hate speech. It was a Select Committee initiated inquiry, not a government one, and was supported unanimously by the committee members - Dianne Yates (Chairperson/Labour), Shane Ardern (Deputy Chairperson/National), Hon David Cunliffe (Labour), Lindsay Tisch (National), and Steve Chadwick (Labour).
Recent Comments