A scourge of cockroaches might be among the culprits as commentators conjecture on the PM’s decision to quit

Buzz from the Beehive

There has been nothing fresh on the Beehive website, since Jacinda Ardern gave us a double whammy yesterday –  the announcement of her  resignation and the date (14 October) of the General Election.

But the mainstream media won’t be unduly bothered.  The first of the two posts yesterday looks likely to keep their political reporters and the commentariat busy for some time, mainly with conjecture and speculation about why she really resigned, who will succeed her, how the election campaign will be affected, and so on. 

Her own statement explained:

Thomas Cranmer: Twitter and the Monty Python Business Model

Elon Musk continues to develop the new free speech model for Twitter, drawing on comedy for new ideas and as a way of deflecting political criticism. Jacinda Ardern’s approach involves less humour.  THOMAS CRANMER examines the contrast…

On Sunday I asked the question: would Twitter unfollow the Prime Minister given that, on the face of it, Musk and Ardern have very different ideas of how the public square should operate?

As it turned out, it was a question that the Prime Minister was also pondering. When questioned on Tuesday about Twitter’s change of ownership, Ardern observed that “it is fair to say we are in a bit of unknown territory at this point”. They had, it seemed, changed their relationship status to “it’s complicated”. Despite this setback Musk and Ardern both had a busy week, with each of them progressing their own vision of how public discourse should be moderated.

In a previous article, I observed that humour was central to Musk’s view of free and open debate and this week saw confirmation of that. It started on Tuesday with him toying with the idea of asking twitter users to pay $20 per month for a blue check as a means of verification. When the author Stephen King unceremoniously shot him down, Musk’s response was to lower the price:     

Graham Adams: Ardern’s authoritarian streak was on full show at the UN

The Prime Minister’s latest call to limit free speech has been widely criticised yet it has been barely reported in New Zealand.  GRAHAM ADAMS writes – 

In the eyes of Jacinda Ardern’s substantial global fan base, she remains a beacon of hope in a dark and chaotic world — a source of inspiration and a humble force for good amongst often tawdry, self-serving politicians.

For them, her address to the United Nations late last month will undoubtedly have reinforced her appeal. There she was at the podium in New York, imploring the sprinkling of diplomats seated before her to act against “mis- and disinformation online”, which she rated as dangerous as bullets and bombs.

She implied that misguided views legitimising the Russian invasion of Ukraine were hampering efforts to end it and that climate change denialism was a problem that world leaders needed to confront head on.

As she put her case, she had the fetching air of a doleful Madonna — doing her best as Our Lady of Sorrows to lead a benighted world to a better place through her prescription for protecting the vulnerable from “hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology”.

Censorship on campus – academic freedom bill is voted down by MPs who fear exposure to some ideas can be damaging to our health

Labour MP Jo Luxton – in a Parliamentary speech about academic freedom in this country – referred to the recent shooting in the United States by a young person who had been “radicalised and emboldened” by the mosque attacks in Christchurch a few years ago.

These were actions based on hate for someone of a different race or religion.

She referred, too, to the 23-day occupation of the grounds of Parliament by protesters earlier this year.

“Our place, the people’s place, was desecrated while people had a platform to spread their mis- and disinformation, where they spoke about freedom, freedom of speech, and they also spoke about hate.”

In defence of censorship on campus, in effect, she said she wanted her children to go out and explore the world and to attend university and other learning institutions.

“But I want to know they are as safe as possible while they do so. I can’t tag along to uni with them too, so, as parents, we put a lot of trust in those places—that they will do all that they can to keep our children safe, and that means minimising the risk of mental harm, minimising the risk of physical harm, which they are obliged to do under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

“This proposed piece of legislation takes that away.”

Hence she opposed a private member’s bill intended to enhance the right to freedom of expression within our universities. 

Māori Party by-passes by-election in Tauranga (where it won 0.35% of the 2020 party vote) but scores well with “racism” headlines

The Māori Party could be sure it would generate emotive headlines when it announced it won’t stand a candidate at the Tauranga by-election “on the basis of a safety issue”.

It claimed the party’s co-leaders have received threats and hate speech from residents there.

Stuff ran the news under the headline Racism in Tauranga makes it ‘unsafe’ to enter by-election, Māori Party says.

The by-election, forced by the resignation of National MP Simon Bridges (who is Māori), will take place on June 18.

The candidates confirmed so far include National’s Sam Uffindell, Labour’s Jan Tinetti and ACT’s Cameron Luxton.

Reporting on the Māori Party’s announcement, Newshub said:

Wilson mentioned a Department of Internal Affairs report published in April which showed “hate speech from white supremacists on social media is the largest form of hate speech in this country”.

He said Tauranga is a “hotspot”, with residents being “subjected to white supremacist leaftlet drops“.

The report referenced by Wilson makes no mention of Tauranga.

Parliament is in recess but Kris Faafoi is too busy to discuss proposals for hate-speech laws

********

The Minister of Justice appears to have gone into hiding. GRAHAM ADAMS,  writing for The Democracy Project,  provides an update on how the public debate on hate speech regulation is going, especially in terms of whether political opinion should or shouldn’t receive an exemption from new laws.

********

It fell to RNZ to break the news to the nation late last week that the Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, had “gone to ground”. Despite making repeated requests to interview him about proposals to expand hate-speech laws, the public broadcaster has been told the minister in charge of managing their introduction is too busy — even during a three-week parliamentary recess — to discuss them.

With her Minister of Justice having gone AWOL ever since a disastrous television interview on the topic a month ago, the Prime Minister’s call for a national debate has lurched from a shambles into farce. The government allowed only six weeks for public submissions and now — with less than two weeks to go until the August 6 deadline — the cat has apparently got Faafoi’s tongue in an iron grip.

On Newshub Nation in late June, Faafoi failed to offer coherent explanations of what kinds of speech would likely fall foul of a new law — including whether Millennials could be prosecuted for expressing hatred against Boomers because of house prices, or whether someone claiming that homosexuals are destined for hell would be liable for prosecution.

Hate speech law proposals aim to create a safe and inclusive society – but discrimination is unlikely to be discouraged if it is positive

The government has declared its intention to make hate speech a Crimes Act offence and to increase the penalties for inciting hatred or discrimination.

It has announced a public consultation on proposed changes to the Human Rights Act 1993

“… to strengthen protections against speech that incites hatred and discrimination; and seeking New Zealanders’ views about how they would make New Zealand more socially cohesive”.

Writer George Orwell would have relished the language applied by Beehive spin doctors to describing the objective. The government is launching a “social cohesion programme to address incitement of hatred and discrimination”.

We imagine this is not intended to discourage or eliminate discrimination of the sort that bestows favours or privileges when the government promotes an “us” and “them” society through the increasing development of Crown-Maori partnerships.

Treating Maori and non-Maori separately is reflected in a raft of policies, as evidenced  (for example) in the latest announcement on the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund.

Final decisions had yet to be made on how the full Housing Acceleration Fund would be used, Housing Minister Megan Woods said this week, but $350 million has been ring-fenced for a Māori Infrastructure Fund.

So where is a fund that has been ring-fenced for other ethnicities?

The government and its supporters will insist this is “positive” discrimination which makes it an acceptable arrangement – a necessary one, even – under the Treaty of Waitangi, although it seems to be at odds with today’s announcement of a significant programme of work to create a safer, more inclusive society.

Hate speech: creating a climate in which silence is the best form of defence against heavy-handed Thought Police

The Government has announced a raft of initiatives in its response to the recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain.

We are told it is not considering the introduction of specific hate crime laws.  But a law to deal with “hate speech” – clearly intended to further crimp our freedom of speech to some degree – is another matter. 

While hate speech legislation has been promised, and is expected to be announced after the release of the Royal Commission of Inquiry report later today, specific offences for more serious hate crimes will not be coming.

Reaction to the royal commission’s report wasn’t the only matter dealt with by ministers in the past day or two.

The Beehive website shows: 

• Contact tracing in New Zealand will get a substantial boost from tomorrow with the addition of Bluetooth tracing to the NZ COVID Tracer app.  
• The Government is delivering on a key commitment to better protect security guards’ pay and conditions by adding them to Schedule 1A of the Employment Relations Act. 
• Te Ahu o te Reo Māori will be expanded as a nationwide initiative for up to 10,000 teachers, leaders and support staff who wish to strengthen their use of te reo Māori,

But the most significant  news was the Government’s response to the recommendations to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain.

The smart way to stop subsidising hateful Chinese propaganda would be to stop subsidising international films

While the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights Commission are examining  whether New Zealand laws properly balance the issues of freedom of speech and hate speech (whatever that might be), taxpayers are helping to finance  Chinese propaganda.

Hateful propaganda, we suggest.

The Screen Production Grant has handed a $243,000 subsidy to a propaganda film produced by Chinese state-owned enterprises.  

The film’s tagline (reportedly) is ‘Anyone who offends China, no matter how remote, must be exterminated.’

One of Sir Peter Jacksons companies is credited (or discredited) with being a beneficiary of the funding, which has been channelled through the Film Commission.

News of this shameful use of public money did not come to us through the Point of Order Trough Monitor, which is triggered by distributions proudly announced by Ministers of the Crown.

And we confess to missing it when it was reported yesterday in an admirable piece of Stuff reportage.   

Seymour should consult some American judges to avoid being denounced as a bully who speaks in inflammatory code

In case you missed it, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Trevor Mallard, reckons Act  leader David Seymour is a bully.

The Speaker spoke on TV One’s Breakfast yesterday after publication of the review which found bullying is widespread in Parliament.

Interviewer John Campbell couldn’t resist dragging Seymour into considerations:  he asked if it had been bullying or robustness, when Seymour described Green MP Golriz Ghahraman as “a real menace to freedom in this country.”  

Mallard replied:

“In my opinion it did step over the line.  Its not a breach of privilege because it didn’t happen in the House. It’s not a criminal offence but I think it showed poor judgement….”

Campbell:  “Do you think it was bullying?”

Mallard:  “Ah, yes…”