The Free Speech Union (FSU) has strongly condemned the Law Commission’s newly released consultation on the creation of ‘hate crime’ legislation in New Zealand, calling it a “fool’s errand.”
FUS’s chief executive, Jonathan Ayling, argues that defining ‘hate’ in law is inherently subjective and risks suppressing free expression.
The discussion paper, released this morning, was prepared following a directive from Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, who instructed the Law Commission to explore options for new ‘hate crime’ laws. However, the Free Speech Union has questioned the necessity and practicality of such legislation, warning that it could lead to legal confusion and ideological bias in enforcement.
“As we saw with the backlash against ‘hate speech’ laws, determining what qualifies as a ‘hate crime’ is entirely subjective,” said Ayling. “The questions the Law Commission is asking are in vain and threaten to simply create a bigger stick with which to beat unpopular views.”
FSU maintains that existing laws already allow for criminal acts motivated by hate to be prosecuted and that Sentencing Act enables judges to consider a perpetrator’s motivation as an aggravating factor. According to Ayling, this approach strikes the right balance, allowing judicial discretion without creating legal ambiguity.
Ayling pointed to various acts of vandalism in recent years—such as the defacement of political offices, damage to cultural installations, and attacks on LGBTQ+ symbols—as examples of crimes that should be prosecuted under existing law, rather than labelled as ‘hate crimes.’ He argued that without a clear and objective definition of ‘hate,’ the proposed laws could be selectively enforced, leading to potential ideological bias in prosecutions.
“No jurisdiction in the world has created an objective standard for ‘hate.’ Trying to legislate against something so subjective will lead to confusion and inconsistency in enforcement,” Ayling stated. “There is far too much room for ideological interpretation when deciding if a crime constitutes as ‘hateful’ and to what extent.”
FSU has vowed to mobilize its supporter base of over 100,000 people to oppose any new ‘hate crime’ legislation.
“Internationally, ‘hate crime’ laws have proven to be easily weaponized. The rule of law is too important for our democracy to get caught up in subjective and ideological debates that undermine clear legal standards,” Ayling concluded.
The Law Commission’s consultation will seek public input before presenting its recommendations to the government.
Its simply a lurch to Fascism, as the globalist trash, loose ground to truth and reason.
I personally can’t wait to leave what is increasingly, a shoddy little banana republic.
NZ has as much need of ‘hate crime’ laws as a fish has need of a bicycle.
Although authoritarians wish it were , it is not possible to legislate “right thinking” into existence. The Soviets learned this long ago.
We have laws against assault, murder, graffiti, slander, Libel sufficient to prosecute anyone who acts on their supposed “hate”.
So what is “Hate”?
As a child, I hated pumpkin (no pumpkins were hurt as a result of my hate btw – I didn’t seek them out and smash them). Some would say I hated the taste of pumpkin.
I am often accused of hating Jews (antisemitism) because I object to Istael’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine – when really it is the “taste” of Zionism I cannor abide. I have many Jewish friends who feel the same.
The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism includes criticism of the Israeli State. It has been adopted by the U.S. Congress. It itakes very little imagination to recognize it as bad law.
‘I May Disapprove Of What You Say, But I Will Defend To The Death Your Right To Say It’ – still works for me.
Semites include all Semitic language speakers including many arabs, not just jews.
“…threaten to simply create a bigger stick with which to beat unpopular views.”
I agree with everything the FSU said accept this point. It’s not unpopular views they want to quash, but POPULAR views.
People are sick and tired of the intersectionality BS, the racial division, the LGBT insanity and the climate change ponzi schemes. People worldwide are rejecting globalism, leftism and mainstream anythingism. And the establishment cannot stand it because they have to keep up the charade and maintain the illusion in order to keep clinging to their ever-dwindling power.
“Hate speech” = any speech that they hate, and the speech they hate the most is FREE speech. That’s all that any of these laws are about.