Hate speech laws are needed, but might have little effect
One of the thorniest issues for the Government this year is what to do about hate speech. Last year it promised to improve and amend hate speech laws, and create new, hate-motivated offences in line with recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques.
Hate crimes – acts such as vandalism and assault motivated by a hostility or contempt for particular groups – can be dealt with without engaging the complications that hate speech raises. They are already offences, and hate can elevate them to a more serious category.
Currently, hate speech is dealt with by several statutes, including the Human Rights Act 1993 and the Broadcasting Act 1984. The commission recommended hate speech should have an independent charge in the Crimes Act, which would include prohibitions on hate speech against religion.
There will be much agonised discussion about the definition of hate speech, and how to negotiate the tension between freedom of expression in an open, secular, educated and egalitarian society such as New Zealand’s, and speech regarded as so harmful that it deserves a criminal sanction.
It’s not terribly difficult to spot extreme expressions designed to stir up hatred and resentment.
An expressed incitement to violence or blatant exclusion against sections of the community cannot be condoned in any society, but after that grey areas are encountered. President Trump provides some excellent examples.
Somewill want the new hate speech laws to cover anything disrespectful of religion, race and culture. The idea is that a moral society should prevent expressions that make people feel offended, culturally unsafe or outraged. The royal commission suggests a new provision of the Crimes Act that makes it an offence to, among other things, insult ‘‘any group of persons on the ground of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins or religion’’ if the intent is to stir up, maintain or normalise hatred.
Others willwant to criminalise material that suggests fat people need some harsh incentives to slim down, that questions whether transgenderwomen are actually women, or that suggests immigrationmight not be a such a great idea. The potential for offence is boundless.
Lawmakers will struggle, and it will be interesting to see how the leaders of the generally left-wing and politically correctmediawill react.
My view is that hate speech laws, while necessary to send a signal about the incitement of violence or abuse against particular groups, will have little effect. I always think it’s better to let the poison hatch out in the open.
The current provisions, which admittedly carrywet bus tickettype sanctions, had plenty of scope for prosecutions, but few eventuated. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, have stronger hate speech lawswith no noticeable reduction in hateful behaviour.
Those who use social media to spread toxic views designed to incite hatred will find other platforms and channels, and come up withways to hide identity.
The act of criminalising certain expression could well lead to more extreme views as like-minded individuals feed off each other in the frisson of living in a clandestine world. The attention given to criminal charges and trials over hate speech could also mean the laws are counter-productive.
There is also real danger that the Labour Government, egged on by the Greens, will extend the laws to disrespectful material. Observer newspaper columnist Kenan Malik wrote recently that it’s vital to understand that tolerating differing ideas and beliefs does not also mean they have to be respected. And that respect for people as worthy of equal treatment doesn’t mean the same regard for their beliefs is necessary.
We already live in a society which makes pariahs of anybody whose acts or statements don’t pass thewoke test. In the lastweek we’ve heard a lot about cancel culture. I think I’m right in saying the cancel part of the expression comes from calls to remove the livelihood and privileges of an offending party, whether it’s a business, an entertainer or a broadcaster.
Rowan Atkinson, whose silent character Mr Bean made him an international star, this week described cancel culture as like a ‘‘medieval mob looking for someone to burn’’.
I know exactly what he means. It struck me over Christmas, after engagingwith some otherwise very likeable family members, that liberal, lefty progressives have such a sensitive antenna to things like racism that they spend their lives in a state of umbrage, usually on behalf of people to whom they have little connection.
Atkinson noted that the most dangerous part of the growing cancel culture trend is how it can affect people’s livelihoods.
Just before Christmas the irreverent comedian Ricky Gervais, who penned the brilliant The Office series, said he accepted his statements had consequences, because people should be allowed to criticise. ‘‘They’re allowed to not buy your things, they’re allowed to burn your DVDs, and they’re allowed to turn the telly off. What they’re not allowed to do is to bully other people into not going to see you.’’
I agree hate speech should be a crime if only to send a message. But one person’s hate is another person’s disrespect orwarranted criticism. Ifwewant to foster social cohesion, it would be better to concentrate on tolerance rather than respect.