Supplied Content
Wellington, April 5, 2017
The Human Rights Commission is not proposing new hate speech laws.
The Commission has requested that Police collect ‘hate crime’ data as part of their crime statistics. This is something other Police forces do.
Overnight in a report on the rights of disabled people the UK’s NHRI was able to report that “Disability hate crimes recorded by the Police in England and Wales increased by 44% in 2015/16 on the previous year, possibly reflecting improved reporting and recording practices.”
There could have been a similar increase in New Zealand.
Responding to trends
We would not know because the Police here do not collect that data. That is the change we want to see.
The good work going on to address family violence in New Zealand is assisted by the fact that such incidents are not simply classified as ‘assaults’ anymore.
We are simply saying that we should tag assaults and other offences based on hatred of difference similarly so we can see trends and respond accordingly.
The Commission is not seeking any change to the laws of freedom of expression in New Zealand. There is an important case, Fairfax v Wall,awaiting judgement by the Human Rights Tribunal. The result of that case, which is likely to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court by one or other of the parties, may raise significant freedom of expression issues. Time will tell.
The Commission intervened in that case because at its heart is a challenge to how the Commission currently balances freedom of expression in considering complaints under section 61 of the Human Rights Act.
New Legislation
In so far as on-line speech is concerned we are in the early days of the Harmful Digital Communications Act. The Commission rejected the Law Commission suggestion that the Commission be the approved agency, now NetSafe, under that Act because we did not want to speech Police. We wanted to be free to defend all human rights, including freedom of expression. On balance, we supported the Act but we made clear that we would be vigilant in monitoring its implementation as regards freedom of expression. It is too early to come to any conclusions on the Act and any chilling effect on free speech.
What the Commission has been doing on several fronts is urging New Zealanders not to be bystanders and to take responsibility for standing up against any ‘ism’ when they hear or see others putting someone down because of who they are.
Disproportionate Limits
Free speech is an essential part of being able to do that. The danger in disproportionate limits on free speech is that it is usually those in power or in the majority who limit speech that challenges their position or power.
We make no apology for repeatedly saying that survivors of the Holocaust are telling us that, even here, they are hearing the words that were heard in Germany before Hitler came to power. Words that “other” people. Words of hate.
The lesson of history is that ordinary people need to stand up when they hear such words. It is not laws that will stop history repeating it is what is in our hearts and heads and what we do. And free speech is critical to being able to stand up against hate.
*
