MP lacks credibility in urging hate speech law

The anti-deer tirade (April 10) by Forest and Bird manager Debs Martin was similar to the phobia that amateur botanist Leonard Cockayne whipped up in organising the 1930 Deer Menace Conference.

Martin should read the proceedings of the 1986 seminar ‘‘Moas, Mammals and Climate Change in the Ecological History of NZ’’ at which the country’s foremost scientists gathered, among them world renowned ecologist Dr Graeme Caughley. Caughley spoke of the ‘‘defoliation enforced by moas’’. Other scientists likened deer browsing to moa browsing. Moa browsing occurred for millions of years with the vegetation totally adapted to browsing. The adaptations of defence against moa browsing are shown by the lancewood’s juvenile form, divaricating growth, thorns (e.g. matagouri) and even toxins (e.g. tutu).

Caughley estimated moa numbers may well have reached 6 million, compared with the wild deer population as per Landcare Research estimates of 250,000. Which begs the question, had moa not been eradicated in ‘‘a wink in ecological times’’, as Caughley described, would Martin be calling for the extermination of moa? our collective failure in 1994 when Rwanda’s Tutsis were abandoned by the international community, as lambs to the slaughter.

One wonders how these pale-faced know-it-alls would justify their sanctimony to Jeanette Mukabyagaju, the survivor whom I met in the village of Rwimikoni last week. Jeanette’s parents were shot dead on the second day of the killings – April 8, 1994 – and four of her six siblings were cut down in even more brutal fashion during the ensuing days. Jeanette herself only survived after hiding in a locked toilet cubicle for three weeks as militias hunted down every last living Tutsi. As it happens, I didn’t ask for her view on whether the right to incite ethnic cleansing should be restored in Rwanda to placate the human rights lobby – to do so would have been insulting and absurd.

As for how New Zealand adapts its hate speech laws in the wake of Christchurch, it strikes me the distinction between the merely vile and the outright dangerous remains important.

As galling as it is, idiots like Israel Folau deserve the protection of the law. That doesn’t mean Folau shouldn’t face dire consequences from Australian Rugby – they are right to sack him – but he doesn’t need to land in prison. Equally, if you object to one religion or another (I’m utterly ecumenical on his point), you should be able to say so.

I’m inclined to the view that the best antidote to bad speech is good speech. However, when this veers into incitement – when it reaches a certain fever pitch – the law should step in. While tricky, this isn’t an impossible line to draw. I’m wary of efforts to expand definitions in such a way as to grant the state greater powers to police language unless it represents an identifiable threat to public safety.

The better approach is embodied by our prime minister, which is to overwhelm bigotry with a message of tolerance; hate, with love. This is where the individual citizen can lead the way in our own domain. Push back against the racist uncle. Don’t stand for homophobic slurs. Don’t be bamboozled by the ‘‘anti-pc’’ crowd who see something sinister in using language in kinder, more respectful ways. We are, after all, our own best censors.

When it comes to clamping down on social media platforms, I’m more amenable. No-one endowed Facebook and Google with an immutable right to create digital cesspools that we are forced to wade through in perpetuity so they can better target ads at us. Self-regulation has demonstrably failed.

It’s too early to tell whether the kind of solution proposed in the UK’S online harm white paper represents a viable answer or clumsy overreach, but it’s a debate worth having, and one New Zealand should emulate. To do so constructively, however, we need leaders both inside and outside Parliament to front the discussion with calmness and credibility. This we do not have at present.