Speaker 1: Kioudra.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Australia's Parliament
Speaker 2: has been called back two weeks early to push through
Speaker 2: new gun and hate speech legislation in the wake of
Speaker 2: the Bondiet terror attack. The recommendations are reminiscent of those
Speaker 2: made by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the March
Speaker 2: fifteen terror attack in Christchurch. Since twenty twenty one, successive
Speaker 2: governments have begun, paused, then stopped altogether all policy and
Speaker 2: legislative work on hate speech. So where do our laws
Speaker 2: sit today? Are they good enough? Or should we follow
Speaker 2: Australia's lead and finally tackle this issue once and for rule.
Speaker 2: Today on the Front Page, Race Relations Commissioner Doctor Melissa
Speaker 2: Darby is with us to talk about how to tackle
Speaker 2: this growing issue. First off, what do New Zealand's hate
Speaker 2: speech laws look like at the moment.
Speaker 3: At the moment, under the Human Rights Act, there is
Speaker 3: protection for particular groups based on particular characteristics. There have
Speaker 3: been some questions as to whether or not those laws
Speaker 3: cover groups sufficiently. I will make the point that this
Speaker 3: is certainly outside my sort of scope. As Race Relations Commissioner,
Speaker 3: I am here obviously to make sure that the rights
Speaker 3: of various groups are upheld. But some of the more
Speaker 3: technical analysis of these laws, where the threshold might sit,
Speaker 3: how they sit alongside things like freedom of expression, of course,
Speaker 3: which is another human right, requires them quite serious legal analysis,
Speaker 3: so that I guess we're balancing all of the considerations
Speaker 3: in the mix, and.
Speaker 4: Do you think that they are good enough a moment?
Speaker 4: Do they cover enough groups?
Speaker 3: I think there would be room for expanding the laws.
Speaker 3: There's certainly been that has been what some committees or
Speaker 3: commissions have recommended. The Royal Commission of Inquiry, for example,
Speaker 3: into their christ Church musk attacks, recommended changes to our
Speaker 3: hate speech legislation. Whether that happens or not is secondary
Speaker 3: to the fact that we should be addressing.
Speaker 1: These issues in New Zealand.
Speaker 3: A lot of groups that I've engaged with in my
Speaker 3: time in this role. I've been in the role of
Speaker 3: Race Relations Commissioner for about a year now, engaged with
Speaker 3: groups up and down the country. A number of groups
Speaker 3: are very concerned about hateful rhetoric, and all groups want
Speaker 3: better education about the impacts of harmful speech. Some groups
Speaker 3: absolutely want legislative change some darings. And it's important to
Speaker 3: note too that even within communities there are a variety
Speaker 3: of views.
Speaker 4: And in terms of those views, what do most groups
Speaker 4: want first straight off the bat, I.
Speaker 3: Think groups want better education and better public awareness about
Speaker 3: the impact of harmful and hateful rhetoric on groups. I
Speaker 3: think that there's an opportunity for us to provide spaces
Speaker 3: and places for us to mix and mingle with people
Speaker 3: who are different from us. Communities up and down the
Speaker 3: country have told me that that's what they want to do.
Speaker 3: They want to get to know their neighbors, They want
Speaker 3: to mix and mingle with people who are from different backgrounds.
Speaker 3: They don't want to live in a divided New Zealand. Rather,
Speaker 3: they want to live in a united country. And so
Speaker 3: I think there's an opportunity for us to provide better
Speaker 3: spaces for that to occur, to remove the fear and
Speaker 3: mistrust and suspicion that often occurs when there's.
Speaker 1: A bit of a vacuum.
Speaker 3: I think that communities, actually a lot of them have
Speaker 3: said to me, if not all that better education in
Speaker 3: this space about the impact of hateful rhetoric would hopefully
Speaker 3: go some way to perhaps others recognizing the impact of
Speaker 3: some of their actions, but by the same token, us
Speaker 3: providing opportunities for us to connect together with people who
Speaker 3: are different to us shows us that we are far
Speaker 3: more alike than we are different, and perhaps remove some
Speaker 3: of that fear that can often fill a gap and
Speaker 3: loewer of anything else.
Speaker 2: Well, when it comes to hate speech laws and those reforms,
Speaker 2: it's always a hot topic, and we've seen time and
Speaker 2: time again and successive governments of all different colors and
Speaker 2: stripes pick this up, put it down, cancel it, rejig things.
Speaker 4: I mean, is it just because it is.
Speaker 2: So wide reaching and there's that tension between free speech
Speaker 2: versus hate speech.
Speaker 3: I think the Australian example has shown us how complex
Speaker 3: these issues are. I think we know that, but I
Speaker 3: do think that we've failed to recognize the degree of
Speaker 3: complexity and nuance in these issues.
Speaker 1: I'm talking in your general terms here.
Speaker 3: But I think a lot of people see, if you
Speaker 3: are for free speech, you must therefore not have any
Speaker 3: concern whatsoever about hate speech, or if you want changes
Speaker 3: to our hate speech threshold and laws, then you must
Speaker 3: want to censor everybody. And I think that's a very
Speaker 3: binary way of looking at a very complex issue. We
Speaker 3: can understand and appreciate and want to protect the fundamental
Speaker 3: human right of freedom of expression and I guess the
Speaker 3: freedom that affords all of us in a country like
Speaker 3: New Zealand, while at the same time being very concerned
Speaker 3: about some of the increasingly harmful and hateful rhetoric that
Speaker 3: we're seeing directed at communities.
Speaker 1: I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.
Speaker 3: I think we need to come together as a country
Speaker 3: and discuss or hold a constructive, mature, facilitated conversations about
Speaker 3: how we actually address some of these issues so that
Speaker 3: we can balance as best we can those two things
Speaker 3: that are often pitted as competing with one another, and
Speaker 3: in some senses they do not necessarily, so I accept
Speaker 3: completely that the threshold for things like incitement needs to
Speaker 3: be high in order to protect freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that we should accept as a
Speaker 1: country some of the harmful rhetoric that's directed at communities
Speaker 1: in many instances, and certainly what I've been doing in
Speaker 1: my time as Race Relations Commissioner is calling that out
Speaker 1: and doing.
Speaker 3: My best to create greater public awareness about the impact
Speaker 3: of some of this rhetoric that we're seeing on different communities.
Speaker 1: In New Zealand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because the law has always taken that kind of
Speaker 2: principled approach right, taking context into account to determine where
Speaker 2: that freedom of expression turns into hate speech. But how
Speaker 2: difficult is it to differentiate criticism from incitement?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Look, I will say at the outset Chelsea that this
Speaker 3: requires probably more serious legal analysis than what I'm capable of.
Speaker 3: But what communities have told me, and I think what
Speaker 3: communities certainly understand, is that there is a difference between
Speaker 3: criticizing an ideology, for example, or a school of thought
Speaker 3: or an idea, and of course calling for harm to people.
Speaker 3: And I think we probably need to get better about
Speaker 3: understanding that differentiation in our minds. That sometimes it isn't
Speaker 3: pleasant when we hear something that's very close to our
Speaker 3: hearts being criticized. But we've got to come to a
Speaker 3: place as a nation where we are okay with peaceful
Speaker 3: disagreement on issues and where we don't see those who
Speaker 3: disagree with us immediately as enemies. The social media online
Speaker 3: environment doesn't help here. It pits people, I think in
Speaker 3: very absolute terms. You know, we probably say things to
Speaker 3: one another online that we wouldn't say to each other
Speaker 3: face to face, I would hope, and it puts it
Speaker 3: sort of puts people almost in these irreconcilable US versus
Speaker 3: them type teams, and I don't think that's helpful. Most
Speaker 3: recent Essays report shows that the dangers of online extremism
Speaker 3: and the polarization that some of those narratives.
Speaker 1: Are contributing to in our country.
Speaker 3: So yeah, ultimately, I think we need to certainly differentiate
Speaker 3: between criticism of a group and people versus criticism of
Speaker 3: an idea, and sometimes those things can feel blarry.
Speaker 5: We must channel our anger into meaningful action to ensure
Speaker 5: an atrocity such as this can never happen again. And
Speaker 5: that responsibility starts with me as Australia's thirty first Prime Minister.
Speaker 5: It also belongs to each of us here in this
Speaker 5: chamber as parliamentarians, and it's a task for all of
Speaker 5: us as Australians told social cohesion to reject division and prejudice.
Speaker 2: In terms of online radicalization. Would you see that at
Speaker 2: the moment as our greatest threat?
Speaker 1: It's certainly up there, that's for sure.
Speaker 3: The Essays report showed that sort of grievance narratives and
Speaker 3: violent extremism is becoming more prevalent in New Zealand. I
Speaker 3: want to make the point that no one group or
Speaker 3: ideology stands out there are arrange young people in particular
Speaker 3: are targeted online or are seen as being more susceptible
Speaker 3: to these sort of narratives and extremist ideas. And vulnerable
Speaker 3: people are as well, people who are perhaps isolated or
Speaker 3: who have experienced particular traumas in their life.
Speaker 1: I think we need to be.
Speaker 3: More realistic get better at addressing some of these issues
Speaker 3: because what the data also show and the NZD Space
Speaker 3: report is that New Zealand the greatest risk in terms
Speaker 3: of any terrorist attack in New Zealand is from a
Speaker 3: loan individual acting as I said, alone and with an
Speaker 3: access to an easy kind of weapon like a car
Speaker 3: for example, which is quite frightening when we think about
Speaker 3: how easy those things are for people to get.
Speaker 1: Their hands on.
Speaker 3: Of course, algorithms as well, social media algorithms, we all
Speaker 3: know how they operate. They start feeding into the mix
Speaker 3: and the whole thing kind of snowballs. Looking across at
Speaker 3: the Tasman and what they're debating now in terms of
Speaker 3: the hate speech laws you've mentioned. A massive lesson that
Speaker 3: we can learn from them, obviously is seeing how complex
Speaker 3: an issue like this is.
Speaker 4: But what else do you think that.
Speaker 2: We should pay close attention to when they're talking about this.
Speaker 3: Look how Human Rights Commission, via our Chief Commissioner and
Speaker 3: via their president I think his titles of the Australian
Speaker 3: Human Rights Commission have been in touch on this issue.
Speaker 3: The Australian Commission reached out to us, and this has
Speaker 3: particular relevance to myral on the Royal Commission of Inquiry
Speaker 3: into the Chrash hitch Mosk attacks, because I believe they
Speaker 3: will go ahead and set up the Royal Commission of
Speaker 3: Inquiry into the horrific Bondai terror attack. And so we're
Speaker 3: in close communication I suppose with our Australian counterparts, which
Speaker 3: is good. It's important for us to learn from one
Speaker 3: another on this during the course of those communications, and
Speaker 3: what I've seen from them is their submission on these
Speaker 3: on the proposed hate speech laws, which of course have
Speaker 3: now been pulled I understand due to some fairly serious
Speaker 3: opposition from a range of parties for a range of reasons.
Speaker 3: And one of the things that the Commission Australian Commission
Speaker 3: raised was looking at the threshold around incitement and exactly
Speaker 3: where that sits. If current laws were actually being applied
Speaker 3: in the way that they might be able to be applied,
Speaker 3: then obviously again sits outside my wheelhouse in terms of
Speaker 3: the serious legal analysis that that requires, because the Australian
Speaker 3: President did also note the tendency I guess for unintended
Speaker 3: consequences to come from some of these laws, the need
Speaker 3: for laws to be applied evenly and consistently, and of
Speaker 3: course the complexities around like you've mentioned, context mattering in
Speaker 3: various instances, so it's not necessarily that something it's a
Speaker 3: black or white kind of is zero su game type approach.
Speaker 3: So I think that we can learn a lot from
Speaker 3: each other. We are certainly in constant communication at the
Speaker 3: moment on this particular issue. We have seen in recent
Speaker 3: times in both New Zealand and Australia increasing anti semitism
Speaker 3: and Islamophobia, and my role is Race Relations Commissioner. I've
Speaker 3: met with they have in Islamophobia envoy and yet to
Speaker 3: meet coming up with their anti Semitism envoy.
Speaker 1: Of talking to one another a lot, so we're not
Speaker 1: having to.
Speaker 3: Reinvent the wheel, hoping we can learn from each other,
Speaker 3: but also recognizing that Australia has faced particularly extreme instances
Speaker 3: of anti Semitism and Islamophobia recently.
Speaker 1: I don't want to.
Speaker 3: Ever put out there a narrative that New Zealand is
Speaker 3: polarized and there is no hope. There is so many
Speaker 3: incredible things that are happening in our communities in New Zealand,
Speaker 3: and I think the recent harmony accord between Jewish and
Speaker 3: Muslim communities in New Zealand is an example of the
Speaker 3: willingness of a range of groups in New Zealand to
Speaker 3: really work together to address these issues and hopefully to
Speaker 3: prevent some of the more extremist rhetoric and behavior and
Speaker 3: so on that we're seeing in a lot of overseas
Speaker 3: countries coming to our shows here.
Speaker 2: Reforms to hate speech and hate crime's laws were among
Speaker 2: some of the recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry
Speaker 2: into the March.
Speaker 4: Fifteen terror attack. What if anything has changed then.
Speaker 3: Look, my understanding is that nothing has changed since then.
Speaker 3: I think if in terms of the environment, we're perhaps
Speaker 3: operating in a more polarized in some cases environment, But
Speaker 3: again I don't want that to be the only narrative
Speaker 3: that people hear about this country. You know, there are
Speaker 3: so many incredible community groups and individuals out there who are.
Speaker 1: Doing wonderful work to you know, to come together on.
Speaker 3: This particular issue and a range of others, of course,
Speaker 3: And I think the irrespective and whether the legislative change
Speaker 3: comes in terms of our hate speech laws, and that's
Speaker 3: obviously a decision for politicians and so on. I don't
Speaker 3: think that that means we don't address in some way
Speaker 3: hate speech or harmful rhetoric that targets communities. And I
Speaker 3: recognize the subjective nature of those terms, you know, through
Speaker 3: things like education, through things like providing opportunities for us
Speaker 3: to come together as a nation human rights in terms
Speaker 3: of the one of the fundamental ideas is the the
Speaker 3: inherent dignity of every human being. Imagine what kind of
Speaker 3: how that calls on us to treat one another. If
Speaker 3: we hear ideas like that more, and hear messages like
Speaker 3: that more, How does it call on us to behave
Speaker 3: ourselves if we think about the inherent dignity within ourselves. So,
Speaker 3: in my role as commissioners, I'm doing my best to
Speaker 3: get those sorts.
Speaker 1: Of messages out there, and certainly.
Speaker 3: Have plans for things like Race Relations Day as well,
Speaker 3: to provide a platform for us to come together as
Speaker 3: a nation where a nation now of over two hundred
Speaker 3: ethnic communities, one hundred and seventy languages, we want to
Speaker 3: live in a united New Zealand and to prevent some
Speaker 3: of these things that are occurring offshore from harmon communities
Speaker 3: anymore in New Zealand than they already have. Whether there's
Speaker 3: legislative change or not, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't
Speaker 3: be addressing some of these issues in other ways, and
Speaker 3: that's what I'm attempting to do in my role, that's
Speaker 3: for sure.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, And of course any kind of rhetoric about
Speaker 2: the how multicultural we are as the country and how
Speaker 2: that makes us better is a good thing. But I
Speaker 2: can't imagine that a Nazi sympathizer would you take part
Speaker 2: in a Race Relations Day for example?
Speaker 4: What do we do with those outer fringe groups?
Speaker 1: Great question?
Speaker 3: And I think at the moment, as I see issues,
Speaker 3: they are currently playing out in the extremes.
Speaker 1: So if we take a really big issue like immigration,
Speaker 1: for example, it's a.
Speaker 3: Hot topic overseas, there are people who are raising this
Speaker 3: as a topic in New Zealand. I see, for example,
Speaker 3: the role of the Human Rights Commission and certainly perhaps
Speaker 3: me in particular as Race Relations Commissioner, to provide opportunities
Speaker 3: and a platform to facilitate strengthening middle ground on these issues.
Speaker 3: We need to provide people with a space to address
Speaker 3: genuine concerns, not extreme racist rhetoric that's quite simply vile,
Speaker 3: but genuine concerns about the kind of country that we're
Speaker 3: living in and the sorts of ways that we can
Speaker 3: ensure that harmonious relations and social cohesion is protected without
Speaker 3: of course making us all this same as one another.
Speaker 3: That's not how we want to be either. We want
Speaker 3: to be living in a country where we can be
Speaker 3: our unique selves but still get along with our neighbors
Speaker 3: and be prepared to sit down and have a cup
Speaker 3: of tea with one another. That's the role that I
Speaker 3: see the Human Rights Commission playing, And I think that, yeah,
Speaker 3: we probably can't persuade people on the extremes of either
Speaker 3: end of any debate, but how do we strengthen the
Speaker 3: middle ground and provide those opportunities so that people don't see, well,
Speaker 3: the only people who are raising these issues are on
Speaker 3: the extremes, and that to me just creates further division
Speaker 3: and polarization.
Speaker 2: Right, and then that would mean that those people in
Speaker 2: the middle ground won't slowly float either way either like
Speaker 2: we see, and that's that online radicalization, right.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, we want to provide some opportunities for people to
Speaker 3: have really constructive conversations where the message isn't that we
Speaker 3: have to agree with it agree with one another, but
Speaker 3: where we don't see those who disagree with us immediately
Speaker 3: as Y and I think that's a really really important
Speaker 3: message for us to get out there, to combat any
Speaker 3: polarization that already exists, and of course to stop.
Speaker 1: Making it in order to hopefully prevent making it even worse.
Speaker 6: The best working definition of what hate speeches is the
Speaker 6: one that the Germany has adopted in other European and
Speaker 6: think of it like group defamation. So we're all part
Speaker 6: of groups where Christian or Jewish or Muslim, or we're
Speaker 6: gay or trans and if someone says something which libels
Speaker 6: that group as a group and tries to say, aha,
Speaker 6: you don't belong here in society. You have less inherent
Speaker 6: dignity as a group than other people. But that hates me.
Speaker 2: And in terms of those out I mean, I know
Speaker 2: that the police and sas do an amazing job of
Speaker 2: keeping track of people with extremist views, but it does
Speaker 2: feel like when we talk about big change, we think
Speaker 2: of it as very reactionary. So I'm thinking nine to eleven,
Speaker 2: airports change, airport security changed, forever. You're thinking Christchurch Mosk attacks.
Speaker 2: We've got the gun By back Port, Arthur massacre, gun
Speaker 2: By back in Australia and now the Bondi attack potentially
Speaker 2: leading to hate speech laws and hate crime laws in Australia.
Speaker 4: Do you think we should be.
Speaker 2: Less reactionary when it comes to, you know, those big
Speaker 2: law reforms and those big changes.
Speaker 1: Yes to no.
Speaker 3: I think it probably depends on a case by case situation.
Speaker 1: I think if there's a.
Speaker 3: Real gap that we can plug, if you like, in
Speaker 3: response to those horrific attacks you've mentioned and lock I've
Speaker 3: as I mentioned, I've been in the role of Race
Speaker 3: Relations Commissioner for a year, but I'm working closely with
Speaker 3: christ Church Muslim communities, indeed Muslim communities up and down
Speaker 3: the country. But including that, so I see nearly seven
Speaker 3: years on the ongoing impacts of the christ church, terra
Speaker 3: attacks on a community. So if there is anything that
Speaker 3: we can do to prevent those sorts of things happening again,
Speaker 3: we've got to do it. Of Course, by the same token,
Speaker 3: we want to make sure that the things that we
Speaker 3: are putting in place are as well thought through as possible,
Speaker 3: are addressing the actual issue at hand, and don't have
Speaker 3: unintended consequences, and of course protect in the case of
Speaker 3: hate speech laws and freedom of expression other rights in
Speaker 3: the mix that we also want to make sure we
Speaker 3: are recognizing and looking after.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one thing that I did notice with the Australian laws,
Speaker 2: and sorry to keep bringing this up, but you know,
Speaker 2: it is kind of a blueprint of things, like you know,
Speaker 2: Anthony Aubernezy kind of put out a blueprint of everything
Speaker 2: that was possible and we're slowly seeing that get taken away.
Speaker 2: But one of the reactions to the initial draft law
Speaker 2: was that, you know, making it illegal to be a
Speaker 2: part of a hate group, and that saw the disbandment
Speaker 2: of the National Nazi Network or something. I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: not going to say their full name on the podcast,
Speaker 2: but they basically sent out a newsletter saying we're going
Speaker 2: to disband by this Sunday.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: In one respect, yeay, But in another, those groups are
Speaker 2: always going to continue to be there, whether you see
Speaker 2: them or whether you don't. So is something like that
Speaker 2: better to be seen rather than tucked away in the
Speaker 2: shadows because they're gonna they're gonna pop up somewhere else, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: There's an argument that by banning things, you don't remove
Speaker 3: it necessarily, you simply push it underground. And look, if
Speaker 3: I can tell a quick story, I come from a
Speaker 3: storytelling background. But if I can tell a quick story
Speaker 3: about time spent in the US. I was researching the
Speaker 3: horrific Emettel case and from the civil rights movement back
Speaker 3: in the fifties, I spent time at a particular community
Speaker 3: there with a man who was African American and who
Speaker 3: worked in one of the museums. He and I were
Speaker 3: walking around a very small part of Mississippi, and he said,
Speaker 3: I now don't know where the sort of houses to
Speaker 3: avoid are because the district that he was living in
Speaker 3: had recently banned the flying of the Confederate flag. He
Speaker 3: knew when they hung those things in the windows. Let
Speaker 3: me not go down that street. I'll go down the
Speaker 3: street instead. But suddenly he didn't know that, and it
Speaker 3: stuck with me because, on the surface, like you've said,
Speaker 3: we think, great, these things should be banned.
Speaker 1: They are often used as symbols of hate.
Speaker 3: But of course I don't think that by banning it
Speaker 3: people necessarily changed their view. They simply for someone like him,
Speaker 3: he simply didn't know how to keep himself safe or
Speaker 3: as safe as he would like to have any more.
Speaker 3: That's one example. Of course, there is the other example
Speaker 3: to say, well, why should we tolerate, you know, groups
Speaker 3: like your Nazi Australian group, And yeah, I think that
Speaker 3: it's probably a case by case basis. Perhaps in some
Speaker 3: instances banning something does send a signal and can change
Speaker 3: attitudes in society, but look again, whether that happens or
Speaker 3: not is a decision for others to make. We also,
Speaker 3: like I say, want to be careful of a slippery
Speaker 3: slope off Suddenly we're legislating who we can and can't
Speaker 3: associate with.
Speaker 1: I think as well, it's.
Speaker 3: Important to point out that from a human rights perspective,
Speaker 3: at the end of the Second World War, the human
Speaker 3: rights doctrine, if you like, came about to prevent governments
Speaker 3: doing harm. So we also want to keep that in
Speaker 3: mind too. And that's not to say that legislative change
Speaker 3: is harm. I'm just putting that out there as a consideration,
Speaker 3: which I think is probably why the Australian example has
Speaker 3: shown us how complex these issues are and how difficult
Speaker 3: they can be, and how we can't see them in
Speaker 3: these binary yes or no terms. But we need to
Speaker 3: be able to sit down and look at all of
Speaker 3: the factors in the mix so we get things right.
Speaker 1: So we do protect.
Speaker 3: Communities, but so we also protect pretty fundamental freedoms that
Speaker 3: we all enjoy in countries like New Zealand and Australia.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us, Melissa, my pleasure. That's it for
Speaker 2: this episode of The Front Page. You can read more
Speaker 2: about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzidherld dot
Speaker 2: co dot nz. The Front Page is hosted and produced
Speaker 2: by me Chelsea Daniels. Caine Dickie is our studio operator,
Speaker 2: Richard Martin, our producer and editor, and our executive producer.
Speaker 4: Is Jane Ye.
Speaker 2: Follow the Front Page on the iHeart app or wherever
Speaker 2: you get your podcasts, and join us next time
Speaker 4: For another look beyond the headlines.