Muzzling prison inmates sets us up for the same treatment
IT always starts small. Colin James, in his masterful The Quiet Revolution, reminds us that what ended as ‘‘Rogernomics’’ began with the humble potato. National’s freemarketeers rebelled at a departmental proposal to regulate the size, shape and quality of New Zealand’s potato crop. It was a small victory, easily missed, but the arguments deployed to win it were destined to sweep all before them in the years to come. That’s why it pays to keep your ears peeled for arguments that sound a little off. What seems preposterous one year has a nasty habit of being enshrined in law the next.
By the time you read these words, one of those seriously preposterous arguments will indeed have become law. With the combined support of the Labour, Green, and NZ First parties, the Corrections Amendment Bill sailed through its third reading in the House of Representatives on Tuesday afternoon.
I wish I could tell you that the National Party fought a lonely rearguard action against its passage, but that would be a lie. Because the incident which prompted this law change involved the alleged perpetrator of the Christchurch Mosque
Massacres, no politician seeking reelection would dream of turning it into a cause celebre.
When a letter penned by the alleged Christchurch shooter was mistakenly permitted to leave Paremoremo Maximum Security Prison, and make its way into the hands of the accused’s white supremacist supporters, and from there, inevitably, on to the internet, an immediate cry went up for increased legal restrictions on prisoners’ right to communicate with the outside world.
No matter that the power already existed to censor or withhold prisoners’ mail; nor that the failure to exercise that power was by Corrections NZ, it was decided by the Coalition Government that the law must be strengthened.
Why?
The truly sinister answer would appear to be that the administrative failure on the part of Corrections NZ offered a wonderful opportunity to place upon the statute books, for the first time, vastly expanded legal powers to restrict New Zealand citizens’ and residents’ freedom of expression. With the passage of the Corrections Amendment Bill, content which, in the judgement of the prison authorities, discriminates against any person on the basis of race, religious belief, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, disability, age, political opinion and employment status will constitute grounds for censoring and/or withholding a prisoner’s mail.
What’s wrong with that? The communications of extremists and terrorists, especially those responsible for events such as the Christchurch mosque massacres, have the power to inspire similar acts of extreme violence elsewhere in the world. Of course they must be withheld!
Indeed they must. Any prison charged with detaining a terrorist of such lethality must exercise extreme vigilance. All of their communications must be carefully studied by experts whose prime responsibility must be keeping the public safe. That’s what should have happened with the alleged Christchurch shooter. The powers to censor and withhold his letters were there — they simply were not used.
There is, however, a very big difference between a prisoner like the alleged Christchurch shooter and your commonorgarden variety criminal with rightwing ideas. It’s a difference the new legislation declines to recognise. In addition to being punished for the crimes they have committed, rightwing inmates are to be further punished by having their internationally recognised right to communicate with the outside world made subject to the political judgements of their jailers. Offensive material published by persons living outside prison will continue to escape censorship. Prisoners’ opinions, on the other hand, may be legally suppressed.
How fortunate for the world that the First Amendment to the American Constitution made it impossible for Alabama’s prison authorities to avail themselves of legislation such as New Zealand’s Parliament has just passed. Had they possessed in 1963 the legal authority we have vouchsafed to our prison wardens in 2019, can it be doubted that Martin Luther King’s celebrated ‘‘Letter From Birmingham City Jail’’ would never have seen the light of day? A few sentences from that letter bear repeating:
‘‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.’’
If we are content to muzzle those with whom we disagree today, we should not be surprised when they muzzle us tomorrow.