Iranian Kiwis are strong proponents of democracy because they’ve seen the alternative. Photo / Mark Mitchell
OPINION:
“Women, Life, Freedom.”
As crowds across the world gather for protests in solidarity with the women of Iran, this chant rings out in unison: Women, Life, Freedom.
It’s a simple request. That women in Iran can have the most basic of rights, the right to life and the right to decide what to do with their own life.
In a democracy like ours, it can be hard to imagine a life where you have so few rights that you could be tortured or killed just for having a few strands of hair out of place. But it happens in Iran.
We are fortunate to be able to express ourselves without fear of persecution. So why would the Government risk changing this with hate speech laws? The intention of bringing about a kinder world with more respectful public discourse is a noble one. However, there is no evidence that new hate speech laws will reduce harm and achieve more social cohesion. If the rest of the world is anything to go by, they will have the opposite effect.
At a protest at Parliament a few weeks ago, I met women who experienced first-hand life under the Islamic Republic of Iran’s regime.
They’re strong proponents of democracy because they’ve seen the alternative. They’ve witnessed tyranny and know the fear of punishment that comes from saying the wrong thing. They used their voices here to speak for women who were being silenced, or worse, killed in Iran for daring to want freedom. Freedom of speech and freedom of choice.
They know every person should be able to live without fear of persecution or death at the hands of the Government. We should feel safe to walk down the street. We should have the right to practice our religion in the way we choose.
Hate speech laws do not automatically lead to the kinds of atrocities as those committed by the ‘morality police’ in Iran. But, equally, it is impossible for those atrocities to occur in a society with free speech. That’s why the first thing oppressive regimes have done throughout history is silence their critics by force.
We should be able to openly criticise the Government and to criticise religion. Both hold incredible power over citizens or believers and neither should be above scrutiny. Free speech is the first line of defence against further oppression.
These are rights that we expect in New Zealand. We should be a modern, multi-ethnic liberal democracy. Our Bill of Rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference.”
Hate speech laws would change this. Justice Minister Kiri Allan has confirmed her intention is to imminently introduce hate speech laws to Parliament so they can be law before the election.
Do we really want to empower a Government department to go around prosecuting ‘hate-motivated speech?’ They can’t even define what hate speech is. The Prime Minister just said “you’ll know it when you see it”.
The Government’s more specific proposal in writing promises to criminalise anyone who “intentionally incites, stirs up, maintains or normalises hatred…by being threatening, abusive or insulting.”
If your crime cannot be defined, you cannot prove your innocence. Guilt and innocence therefore become a matter of opinion, popularity, or trends. You have no legal rights or defences against this crime. You just have to hope your views are deemed acceptable.
Is it possible that women who’ve fled oppression could be punished under hate-speech law for openly criticising the religion of the Government, or religious members of the community they’re at odds with? Could these laws limit their ability to call for the downfall of the Islamic Republic if they are accused of islamophobia along the way?
Here’s another example. Until recently the website of Te Paati Māori said “It is a known fact that Māori genetic makeup is stronger than others.” A political party openly claiming racial supremacy is abhorrent. The statement could certainly stir up or maintain hatred, it is insulting, but should they be prosecuted for it? Was that their intent? How could they prove their innocence?
It’s insane these questions could even be up for debate. This is the problem with hate speech laws, they’re deeply subjective. Something like ‘offensive’ or ‘insulting’ should never be used to prosecute offences.
Hate speech laws are incompatible with freedom. They amount to using the force of the state to silence other people’s opinions. They prevent self-expression, and make society poorer by suppressing new ideas and the criticism of bad ones.
Freedom of expression is one of the most important values our society has. We can only solve our most pressing problems in an open society in which free thought and open enquiry are encouraged.
We should be proud that women in New Zealand can safely say the Islamic Republic is a corrupt despotic state led by deranged men, and we should think hard about protecting that right against all threats, including our own Government.
Brooke van Velden, MP, is the deputy leader of the Act Party.