By Chris Trotter*
Jacinda Ardern faces a considerably less daunting task in selling her Hate Speech laws than many of her opponents anticipated. Yes, a clear plurality of New Zealanders either strongly or somewhat oppose the Government’s proposals – 43 percent in total. But, the number of eligible voters who somewhat or strongly support the proposed measures, at 31 percent, represents an extremely solid minority. With 15 percent of voters currently taking a “neutral” stance, the Prime Minister still has everything to play for.
New Zealand owes the newly-formed Free Speech Union (FSU) a debt of gratitude for commissioning Curia Research to find out exactly where the country stands on the Government’s Hate Speech proposals. Prior to this survey, carried out from Monday, 5 July to Thursday, 8 July 2021, those with an interest in this issue were relying upon the responses of 9,000 AM Show viewers, approximately 80 percent of whom declared themselves opposed to the PM’s proposals. While these numbers may have cheered the supporters of Free Speech, they were not reliable. Curia’s scientific poll of 1,000 randomly selected respondents, carefully weighted to reflect the overall voting adult population in terms of gender, age and area, offers a much more accurate snap-shot of public opinion on this issue.
Ardern will be encouraged to discover that 49 percent of those giving their Party Vote to Labour support her Hate Speech proposals, with only 17 percent registering their opposition. This net support figure of 34 percentage points is further bolstered by the Green Party’s net support figure of 55 percentage points. Support for outlawing Hate Speech is clearly emerging as an issue dear to the hearts of left-wing voters.
Significantly, the converse is even more strongly indicated by right-wing voters. The net corresponding figure for National’s Party Vote shows opponents of the PM’s proposals are leading their supporters by a very solid 47 percentage points. Fully 63 percent of National’s backers are either strongly or somewhat opposed to outlawing Hate Speech. Only 16 percent are prepared to back the proposed measures. Predictably, the Act Party is as strongly opposed to the Hate Speech laws as the Green Party is supportive. 74 percent of Act voters are either strongly or somewhat opposed, with a paltry 9 percent in favour. Act voters’ opposition to the proposed Hate Speech laws outstrips their support by a whopping 65 percentage points!
The Hate Speech issue doesn’t just expose a yawning ideological gap between Left and Right, but a significant gender gap between women and men. Curia Research reveals support for the Prime Minister’s proposed law changes skews heavily in favour of women. 51 percent of men either strongly or somewhat oppose the legislation, compared to 34 percent of women. Women’s support for the measures stands at 35 percent, men’s at 24 percent. As Curia itself noted: “Women’s net support is +1% and men are –27% – a huge gender gap.”
Only in two parts of New Zealand does support for the proposed Hate Speech laws outstrip the opposition. Unsurprisingly, it is in Christchurch – the scene of the deadly mosque shootings – that Curia recorded the highest level of support. Cantabrians in favour of curbing Hate Speech are 13 percentage points ahead of those opposed. In Wellington, the most politicised of New Zealand’s major cities, the positive margin – 5 percentage points – is considerably narrower. In Auckland City, opponents outnumber supporters by 10 percentage points. In the provincial cities the negative margin is narrower, just 2 percentage points. Tellingly, respondents’ negativity soars in New Zealand’s small towns and rural communities, registering 26 percentage points and 32 percentage points respectively.
Only among New Zealanders under the age of 30 does the Curia survey throw up a clear preference for legislative action on Hate Speech. Voters over the age of 30 are not convinced of the need for the imposition of criminal sanctions. The negative margin is narrow for the 31-45 age-group, but it opens up spectacularly for those aged 46-60 years. In this age-group the opponents of Hate Speech laws outnumber supporters by 22 percentage points. This is higher than the negative margin of the over-60s, which Curia measured at just 14 percent.
These results will be of particular concern to the Labour Party and their Green allies. Middle-aged and elderly New Zealanders are by far the most reliable participants in the electoral process. If the FSU [of which it is only fair that I acknowledge my membership to the reader] is successful at turning the Hate Speech legislation into a defining issue of the 2023 General Election, then the votes of its staunchest opponents in the upper age-groups could prove decisive. All the more reason for Labour and the Greens to do everything within their power to mobilise the Youth Vote. Easy to say, of course, but notoriously difficult to do.
Could Labour be rescued on this issue by socio-economic factors? Curia’s results indicate that support for the proposed Hate Speech laws is highest among the wealthiest third of the population, where it stands at 33 percent. The next most supportive are the poorest third, at 30 percent. Least supportive are the middle third, with just 29 percent in favour – and 45 percent against – the Government’s Hate Speech proposals. Overall, however, negativity reigns across all socio-economic groups.
Once again, there is little in the way of good news for Labour and the Greens in these numbers. Socio-economic status and ethnicity in contemporary New Zealand tend to be very closely associated. With Maori, Pasifika and Immigrant communities among the poorest in the country, it might be supposed that support for Hate Speech legislation would have been at its highest. After all, it is people of colour and religious minorities who are the principal targets of Hate Speech. That 41 percent of the poorest third of New Zealanders are either somewhat or strongly opposed to the proposed law changes is surprising – to say the least.
It is important to note that across the Curia survey a pretty consistent figure of around 15 percent of respondents declared themselves to be neutral on the proposed Hate Speech laws. It is for the hearts and minds of these folk that the battle will be entered in earnest. Convince the ”Neutrals” of the need to take decisive action to curb and criminalise Hate Speech, and the Prime Minister will be as close to the magic 50 percent as makes no difference. No Government can afford to go out on a policy limb when 80 percent-plus of the electorate is ranged against it. With voters evenly divided on an issue, however, a Government can go for broke.
As things now stand, the Prime Minister can put considerable faith in a young, well-educated woman from the leafier suburbs of Christchurch and Wellington to cast her vote in favour of a Government committed to fighting Hate Speech. For Judith Collins and David Seymour, however, reliable support for freedom of expression can be expected from a white, male, middle-income earner, nearing retirement and living in a small country town.
Curia’s survey does not make it clear whether this free-speaker drives a double-cab ute, but I wouldn’t bet against it.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
92 Comments
Nice to hear from you Pat. You'll be interested in this: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-i…
There is a serious ethical concern from any well run ivermectin study, and that is that you cant ethically give placebo when Dr Tess Lawrie's high quality meta analysis, which uses the most stringent guidelines for data selection, shows moderate evidence that the drug reduces death by 62% (see here and c19study.com). I get it that you're a government propagandist dcnbwz. You popped up on interest.co.nz a few months into the pandemic furiously defending all government narratives. You're actually not doing the country any favours. Now I really am triggered lol.
That would depend on its use, mostly its not derogatory but its used by some as a derogatory slur. Like YT or white, or indeed almost any politically charged term, it comes down to the intention of the writer when using the word; words carry different meanings depending on the semantic intention of the user.
If he didn't intended it as a slur, why else would he use it ? A blatant dog whistle.
The use of racist/ethnic terms are the same as sexual harassment. It doesn't matter what the authors intention was, it's the perception of the recipient that determines it's offensiveness.
racism requires raciest intentions, sexual harassment requires literal harassment, I think you need to look these terms up because sexual harassment is not decided by the person been approached, its an objective standard that asses if a person was been genuinely harrased.
Actually it has racial connotations. It refers specifically and generically to "white" people ie the skin colour. Shaw is identifying people purely on the basis of colour. No reference to specific ethnicities.
When referring to kiwis to refer to pakeha specifically excludes all other kiwis who dont consider themselves either white or Maori. It's an excluding term if used on its own.
If I believe it has a somewhat disparaging connotations and choose to identify as a kiwi, rather than a European, based on my feelings, would I not then be justified in being offended and subject to hate speech if Shaw identifies me as such?
Pākehā is not 'specifically and generically' a reference to white skinned people. A nation of majority white skinned people may hear it used most frequently in reference to white people due to that majority, but that does not conclude that it is only used in reference to white skinned people.
Pākehā is a Māori-language term whose definition refers generically to anyone of non Māori descent. Anyone using it incorrectly requires an education in it's meaning.
Definition of racism - prejudice, discriminatio or antagonism of a person or people by an individual or institution on the basis of their racial or ethnic group.
Pakeha - ethnic is white
Individual was James Shaw
And the intent was to antagonise
If that wasn’t his intent then why call out pakeha why not just say South Island farmers or just farmers
Shaw was referring to a certain organization of farmers, some of which were of other ethnicities, like Maori. The fact that their spokesperson looked pakeha was enough for Shaw to assume (wrongly) that all members were pakeha and therefore it was only pakeha farmers that were making these comments.
He needed to listen to the message, not shoot the messenger, or those that looked like the messenger.
'like' Māori, or actually Māori?
Pākehā is a Māori-language term whose definition refers generically to anyone of non Māori descent. This includes all melanin skin tones that aren't of Māori descent. Anyone using it incorrectly requires an education in it's meaning.
Because the changes to the law are about inciting hatred. I'm sure James Shaw has not actually done that.
Nor is employment an existing or a proposed protected class.
So there's no hypocrisy at all, just you don't understand what is actually being proposed and how that contrasts to whatever it is you're alleging James Shaw said.
Using any offensive term as a sitting MP could be construed as hate speech. After all it is enshrining inherent systematic racism.
Whether the term is offensive, well that is the problem. "Who" determines what is/is not. There is enough controversy over than particular word that I would say it is indeed offensive.
Under the existing law he would have to incite violence. He didn't. He also didn't insult them on the basis of their skin colour. If any insults were said, it was because of their political views about climate change, which is not illegal under the existing, or proposed, law.
He didn't say "those pakeha farmers are scum bags because they have white skin", he said what he said about the pakeha farmers because of their political opinions. It's not about their race at all, and everyone here pretending that it is is simply stirring, or ignorant.
We have told ourselves a falsehood, all the way. In reality, we need to repress/repel/outgun/outspend 'others'to live at the consumption-levels we do.
There are a Woke brigade who don't want to know this, and who wish to shut the discussion down; I include RNZ in that group.They are the same ones who dodge the population question and often the ones driving EV's in self-justification. They are reinforced by a growing young echelon who are not included in the wealth/propagation narrative, who are therefore trying to identify themselves by other means: rainbow identity etc.
You can't have 'others' who you are competing with, without dissing of them - that's how it goes (Butter Battle Book). Repressing it is therefore denial that such a problem (overshot population, undershot carrying-capacity) exists - and that is a lie being told to self. That will work out well........
Of course if you are young and “well educated” you have the advantage of having been taught what to think throughout school and tertiary education, which means that you fully understand why the government needs more power over what people say and write. It is more difficult for the slightly older generations who had the misfortune of being taught how to think in their formative years and require re-education so that they know what to think asap.
This is the problem with hate speech, who gets to determine what is the "Truth". If what your saying is simply fact, how can it be hate speech ? I think we are better off with free speech, if you don't want to hear it don't listen to it, don't show up at that hate speech rally or change the channel. Those that are wrong will be left talking to themselves.
Parts of this article concerned me. I wondered if some of the demarcation between the 'pros' and 'naes' could be defined by those who were thinking rationally v those thinking emotionally. I noted who the dominant groups supporting JA were.
"Hate speech" is generally defined as trying or endeavouring to invoke a violent response to target groups of the population. But the reaction to any speech is largely the precinct of the listener. We have seen individuals target politicians because of things they have said, or who they represent, but it is the action that counts not what was said. And has any investigation determined that these individual were spurred on by third parties, or were just reacting to what the politicians said? None that i know of. We have also seen politicians carelessly invoking action without any apparent understanding that some will interpret it as a licence to step outside the law. Careless talk is as dangerous in some groups as "hate speech".
The Christchurch shooter acted, but was he preaching? He video taped and streamed live his actions, but that was different, more like an attempt to gain fame, but could have inspired copy cats. In my view he imported a racist xenophobia commonly expressed by a number of Australian politicians. The real risk here is that the government starts to blur the lines on what exactly constitutes "hate speech".
A classical liberal is, by definition, not a socialist. And neither is Trotter. He has gradually drifted to the right for yonks. Pretty sure he is genuinely mates with the likes of Jordan Williams and other sociopaths of New Zealand’s hard right libertarian enclave.
I am a member of the FSU and have supported them financially from time to time. However, I would appear not to fit the mold. I voted Green on environmental grounds last time, but I do not support the proposed legislation. indeed, I wrote to the PM to say that if it becomes law then, despite my dislike of National, if they campaign on a promise to repeal it, I will vote for them.
i feel very strongly that this will be a very poor piece of legislation which we do not need. The right of free speech is already being heavily eroded-as we have seen very recently-and this would further stifle it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and however unpleasant, almost all views should be heard up to and including Holocaust deniers. For those who incite actual violence, then the current laws are sufficient.
pdk,
Fair point. How many are aware of the number of Palestinians 'displaced' in '48. David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary on July 18th 1948, "We must do everything to ensure they(the Palestinian refugees) never do return". I just wanted to keep my argument simple.
You may well have read Gaza in Crisis by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappe.
Hate speech is the woke term for Blasphemy laws of the past. I am totally astound that cultures who were the first to fight this global law (almost everywhere that I am slightly familiar with, including the Muslim world and the Hidu world have blasphemy laws) are so happily brining it back.
No doubt the scholars of social media will be along shortly to correct me but isn't this essentially only a philosophical matter?
Historically occidental societies tended towards Voltaire's efficacy of reason, the idea that social progress could be achieved through reason and that no authority—religious or political or otherwise—should be immune to challenge by reason. Precendent naturally fell to free speech as 'reason' is so widely interpreted.
In my opinion hate speech legislation is a classic wedge issue, it will only fuel an unnecessary culture war. In practical terms this will achieve little. After all across New Zealand every Sunday morning texts promoting homophobia, mysogeny and genocide are handed out to congregations in temples, churches and mosques.
Just because a knife can be a dangerous weapon shall we stop selling knives?
I think we would be better strengthening the bill of rights (think positive) and get tough on crimes.
Not surprise women and young snowflakes wants speech policed.
On a second thought, it would be great to have a line item on my resume to have a hate speech law passed when applying a job in UN.
To quote CT -
'With Maori, Pasifika and Immigrant communities among the poorest in the country, it might be supposed that support for Hate Speech legislation would have been at its highest.....That 41 percent of the poorest third of New Zealanders are either somewhat or strongly opposed to the proposed law changes is surprising – to say the least.'
Only surprising to CT.
Just because they may be some of the poorest, doesn't make them less able to see this is bad legislation.
True the literal poorest communities in NZ are disabled and quite often victims of hate speech by government ministers no less. Yet many leaders in these communities think this law will only drive the discrimination deeper and harder to police or weed out as it becomes harder to take to court when sufficiently bubble wrapped in euphemisms and weasel words.
I'm currently reading "Good thinking" by David Robert Grimes (also known as "The Irrational Ape"). An excellent & readable history & explanation of Critical Thinking theory and practice.
Recommended for all on both sides of the debate, especially those that would wonder where we'd be without free speech.
Here is a good read on why this proposed legislation is a bad idea.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/hate-speech-law-a-threat-to-democr…
And as C.S. Lewis's essay anthology "God in the Dock" (1948). said:
'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.'
As the article in the link says: 'Supporters of the Government’s intended ‘hate speech’ legislation might argue it is only the ill-intentioned - those who would deliberately offend, hurt or stir up hatred against vulnerable minorities - who need fear these laws. But if we hand to those in power the ability to control public discourse, they will inevitably use it to advance their own agendas. They might even do this with a clear conscience, having convinced themselves they are merely protecting the vulnerable.'
I see these anti-discrimination proposals include "political opinion". So it would be a crime to incite, stir-up or normalise political "hatred" which itself is defined as an extreme dislike or disgust. So I guess we can forget about strongly criticising or satirising the government? Mr Trotter spends a lot of time looking at public reaction. Is public opinion really of paramount importance here? If all the Greta Thunbergs in NZ decide "not to hate" then it's a go ahead? I think there might be something more fundamental and serious at stake here.
Is hate speech really a problem in New Zealand requiring extra laws and punishments? I don't think it is something the government needs to waste any time on reinforcing. Companies can fire people who are accused of being hateful. Clubs can throw you out. Reputations can be ruined. If anything the government should be ensuring that people are protected from excessive punishments for holding unpopular or even mistaken opinions.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.