Free speech tests

Amanda Cossham (Letters, April 27) seems confused.

New Zealand law says that ‘‘everyone has the right to freedom of expression . . . of any kind in any form’’. No conditions or rules.

New Zealand legislation then says that some communication is unlawful if it has certain effects. For example, the Human Rights Act 1993 talks about it being unlawful to use language that expresses hostility etc against someone because of their race or ethnic origin etc.

But to ensure the primacy of free speech this language has to meet the hurdle of a three-part test with significant legal safeguards. It has to express hostility etc. and be hurtful, and be repeated or significant. No language is explicitly prohibited – there is no Index of Prohibited Words yet. But if what’s said meets the three-part test then there are very real consequences.

Only if free speech is primary and unconditional will it have beneficial effects. So when Israel Folau made his infamous remarks he had to be free to say them. Only then could he be debated on the merits of his views.

Once the debate is over Folau will be in no doubt that his views are disputed even if he hasn’t changed them.

Thankfully, though, he will be spared, for now, a visit by The Thought Police.

RON SHAW Carterton