Traitors of Sovereign Peoples: NZ Government (Corporation) deliberately neglected to seek acceptance from the peoples of New Zealand. The peoples of whom are the Sovereign of our Nation of New Zealand when they agreed, committed to UN/WEF global agenda’s of demands and compliances. For example – UN Agenda 21, UN Agenda 2030. The Paris Agreement, UN Global Compact of Migration etc., NZ Govt is a party to approx.., 1900 UN Global Agreements. Many are non-binding but does mean country leaders are not committed to them. Once entered into Domestic Law a Non-Binding UN Agreement becomes Binding and lawfully effective. These UN Agenda global agreements are known as ‘soft law’, do not require parliamentary consensus or permission from parliamentarians only by key persons such as Government leaders.

Soft Law: Reinforces existing international law globally. Soft Laws drive the development of international law, ;lays down the groundwork for codification  constitutes new customary law. Soft Law norms do not need parliamentary approval. Soft Law depends on the acceptance rather than judicial enforcement. Soft Law and Compliance go hand in hand as does obligations, monitoring mechanisms. Peer pressure groups, individual are important motivators, as are young people as they take part in Schools Climate Change Strike, where student s are taught how to make their climate doom and gloom propaganda boards.

Bill and Melinda Gates organized a Global Shapers gathering, Ardern was the guest speaker, it was here she boasted to the audience that NZ was the first country in the world to enter UN Agenda 2030 into govt policy and urged other countries to do the same ‘to follow Ardern’s lead’.  Govts favour ‘soft law’ because it allows agreement on content beyond consensus. UN Agenda 2030 preamble states ‘Human Rights For All’, however this is a huge fallacy. The global implementation of UN Agenda 2030 includes a massive invasion of privacy, discrimination and corruption worldwide also severe violations of human rights and civil liberties. 193 UN Member States pledged to ensure their commitment to the implementation of Agenda 2030 17 global Development Goals which include 169 Targets

Global Corporate Capture: UN Agenda 2030 is a very wordy document focuses on implementing global partners   (UN Member States partnering large companies- corporations). People centred-PPPs =People, Planet for Profit.. Wealth for the already very rich few. Agenda 2030 includes 5 Ps..People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership. Agenda 2030 repeatedly references the ‘Financing for Development Outcome Document’, a major part of Agenda 2030 Action Plan to achieve the SDGs (Targets). Replacing ‘greenwashing and blue-washing with rainbow washing

Impossible To Action: In reality UN Agenda 2030 168 targets within the 17 global development goals are impossible to action as this means re-engineering everyone’s mindset, behaviour and evil regimes will never stop purposely and most deliberately keeping their populations poor and hungry. Wars make huge wealth. Evil and Godlessness is rampant. Equality is a bloody great lie. Population resources have been regulated and many restricted for many decades. This will get much worse as UN Agenda 2030 is obsessively implemented. Restricting, regulating people equals a much lower standard of living.

UN Agenda’s Global Pathway: We are in the midst of being accelerated to meet the goal timeline of 2030. In 2018 UN recognized that they could not succeed in meeting their deadline of 2030 for Agenda 2030 so they signed a strategic official partnership agreement with the World Economic Forum representative of Corporate Capture (Multi-stakeholder Corporate Capitalism), hence the acceleration of implementation of UN Agenda 2030 world wide through ‘Public-Private Partnerships’. Corporates on the accelerator pedal driving UN Agenda 2030 vehicle, government and their cohorts the backseat passengers and the sovereign peoples of New Zealand, small businesses, farming communities (farmers) being the road kill.

All Political Cronies On The Same Page: Why do we know this? They have not shared and asked the sovereign peoples of New Zealand for their permission to re-engineer our lives, our economies to politicize, sexualize our children.-.Why? Because they know we wil say NO NO NO NO and you bastards will GO . They have not listened to our sovereign peoples serious concerns. They deliberately ignore our Human Rights and Civil Liberties. It’s my personal opinion that we the Sovereign Peoples of New Zealand are being ruled by liars, crims, cheats and traitors.

Public-Private Partnerships: New Zealand Government with Iwi Elite is already happening. (Fresh Water Iwi Group Leaders- National Iwi Group Leaders). Partnership with Blackrock and Vanguard and other Global Corporations. Blackrock asset manager of NZ Superannuation Fund. Blackrock partnership with Kiwi Bank, both government owned. Blackrock invested Superfunds into weapons and chemicals when Ardern introduced the ‘Buy Back of Firearms’ the government then halted the Blackrock investment into weapons. Non-transparency of NZ Authoritarian regime means we can never trust them to implement ‘public good’ or the common law of the sovereign peoples of New Zealand ‘Firstly ‘Do No Harm’. They have done immense harm to the sovereign peoples of NZ. Have no conscience, show no shame consequently will do anything they choose to do. Hence Corporate Capture and the plundering of New Zealand.

Financial: Digital Corporate Capture. Blackrock already owns more wealth than the World Bank and the IMF. Central Bank Digital Currency. Digital Wallets. Cashless Society. Digital capture and control people. The richer become much richer and the poor become poorer. Again Corporate capture and controlling of peoples lives, re-engineering behaviour and society. See UN Agenda 2030 ‘Financing for Development Outcome’. Expanding taxation. A progressive tax system, broaden tax base, set domestic target & timelines as part of the SDG Agenda 2030 strategies support for developing countries. Increased empowerment of IMP and World Bank to access financial information. The sharing of information through financial institutions and third parties. Privacy no longer exists -your life in their hands. Blackrock partners Kiwi-bank and other major banks in New Zealand.

Financing of UN Agenda 2030 Global  Development Goals (169 Global Development Targets.): Information sharing, significantly restrictive regulations and increased policies. Access more information from financial services. Financial services increase sharing peoples personal information with third parties. Government -Corporations have access to peoples personal information. Financial institutions share your personal information. Strengthen regulatory frameworks to be aligned with UN Agenda 2030 so these practices can implement, adopt  Agenda 2030 strategies. Note: Clean energy includes footing the bill for $100 billion to promote public service & private investment in energy infrastructure-technology & renewables.

Migration: Grow inclusive services for migrants in their host countries, countries of origin and transit destination countries as to the implementation of UN Agenda 2030. Ensure adequate affordable finance for migrants in their host and home country. (This appears to replicate UN Global Compact Of Migration signed by NZ in Dec 2018). Climate Refugees flood across the world, the gap caused by the depopulation of host countries will be filled by refugee’s, migrants hence sovereign states will cease to exist.

Corporate Capture: Economic degrowth. Destruction of small businesses and farming. International laws increase as National laws decrease. Sovereignty will cease to exist as Friedrich Engels predicted “the withering away of the state in the wake of socialism”. At a meeting of the ‘Global Futures Councils’ the gathering focused on the worlds political landscape in 2030, it was said

Degrowth: UN Agenda 2030 the degrowth of New Zealand’s small businesses and rural farming. The corporate capture of New Zealand. National laws and sovereignty will cease to exist. Friedreich Engels predicted the “withering away of the state” in the wake of socialism.  At an annual meeting of the ‘Global Future Councils’, it was said that the worlds political landscape in 2030 will look somewhat considerably different from the present one.

Housing: Mega Cities: Greater surveillance, increased influence and more power of the people. High density city-urban living increases as does people isolation and working from home hence many more suicides. People living in pack & stack apartments not domestic pet friendly, not child friendly.

Transport: Walk, cycling, E scooters, Electric cars, Uber, share rides and public transport hence becoming dependent on public services.

Employment: Ardern in her trip to Europe in 2018 referred to New Zealand and Germany having 45% unemployed within the next 20years. Four day working week. Working from home. Will significantly crush personal innovation, goals and initiatives, incentives. Uncertainty and instability.

Food & Water: Water continues to be sold on the world’s stock market. Water restrictions and regulations increased, monitored. Control of all water and food by corporate capture. C40 cities increase worldwide planned dietary intake. Central Bank Digital currency controlling what people purchase and the services they use eg.,  food, travel, what you do and whom you meet with                       Food controlled worldwide by Nestles, Coca Cola, Blackrock, Vanguard, Bill Gates etc., this path has already started.

Law: Huge increase in crime. People become a law unto themselves. Domestic laws will be replaced by global laws as all peoples will become global citizens of the world (Global Citizenship) Again Corporate capture.  Increased political control via political policing.

UN Agenda 2030 equates to the Decade Of Action which also is in collaboration with IA Immunization 2030 ‘To leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere at every age’. Depopulate and Degrowth.

These UN Agenda 2030 Goals as listed:- Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere. – Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.    Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.    Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.  Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.  Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.  Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries. Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.  Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.  Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.  Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.  Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.  Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

FEAR MONERING IS THEIR WEAPON OF DESTRUCTION-Psychological warfare. One Crisis after another is being played out on a global scale. Fear leads to compliance and slavery of populations. They are scaring your children with Climate Doom and Gloom, the making of fearful placards at schools as to climate doom and gloom. Schools strike for Climate Emergency. UK Health Mental Healthy Services reference ‘Eco Anxiety’ and children’s nightmares as to climate alarmism. CDC publication of a book with monsters hidden everywhere refencing the COVID19 Pandemic. The alerting signs, images are everywhere. Children who are 5 years old and first attending school will no nothing but crisis and fear, facial masks and isolation.   Elderly people in nursing homes waiting for loved ones to visit. Funerals cannot be attended by all family members, friends and loved ones. Bodies of loved ones cremated where this was not a loved ones wishes. Gates to crematoriums, graveyards were locked. Imprisoned within borders. Traditions and cultures deliberately ignored. Peaceful Assembly and publicly opposing the governments narrative equated to character assassination by the govts purchased propaganda machine, house arrests, court appearances, huge fines. (Heil Hitler in NZ -Goebbels censorship). Increased violent political policing.  My own personal thoughts are “ All these fearmongering crisis strategies to control people are being used to  implement, action UN Agenda 2030 Global Development Goals worldwide”. Is UN Agenda 2030 the driving force behind COVID19 Pandemic?

UN Agenda 2030 introduced globally: Actioned, implemented locally. Population control . Technocracy. Resource Management, Destruction of the Free-market economy to replace the Free-market economy with the ‘corporate capture’ of multi-stakeholder corporate capitalism. The rich become richer, the poor become poorer and the middle income drop down to the poor class. This is a Marxist Class system, a Two Tier Society. The Jabbed and Un-jabbed. The Slave drivers and the Slaves. The compliant and the non-compliant, however comply or not you are still being controlled. There is no getting out of jail free card. Police State. End of Sovereign Nations. Destruction of Human Rights and Civil Liberties. Social re-engineering of people minds, behaviours to be compliant to UN Agenda 2030 strategies. (UN/WEF and  UN Member Nation Authoritarian Regimes)

Transforming Our World: Implemented, actioned by a global ruling class namely the ‘Great Reset’ has been planned for decades, the foot is on the accelerator now. Technocratic dehumanization, transhumanism we must STOP this from happening. Every crisis is a key strategy. This is not a conspiracy theory, they are so confident its well published all over the world. Its in your face, they are not hiding it, its no secret. The Sovereign peoples of New Zealand must hold those responsible to account, every MP that resides behind the political doors of the toilet bowl in Wellington. They ALL have full knowledge as to the deliberate harm being caused and will continue to be caused to our Sovereign Nation New Zealand, yet they continue down this road without conscience or shame. This deceptive fearmongering of vulnerable people and children, of the aged and the disabled. The deliberate destruction of traditions and cultures to replace them with a UN/WEF New Normal. Red, Blue, Green-Maori Party, Green Party, Labour and National Parties I personally believe are traitors of the Sovereign People of Our Nation. (All New Zealanders). They have deliberately actioned a divide and conquer, institutionalized racism with a Marxism Class ideology strategy. A Gender Diversity of Rainbows and Unicorns. A deliberate targeting of Males. UN Association Porthole for Education used by teachers to teach your children. Eg: Depopulation. A Stock carrying a baby in a nappy in its beak flying around the globe, is about to land on earth, however flames appear from the earth so the stork flys away with the baby still in its beak. Message: The world’s too dangerous to give birth to more children-depopulate.

UN Agenda 2030 JABS:  14 of the 17 Global Development goals include Immunizations, vaccinations.

Depopulation: Rockefeller Population Council collaborated with International Planned Parenthood Federation (History of Eugenics and Socialism) is affiliated with NZ Family Planning Services. (Largest Abortion Org., worldwide was accused of selling foetuses) . Eugenics is an ideology the global ruling class adheres to, supports and promotes. Replacement population rate for New Zealand is 2.1 we currently sit at 1.6

New Zealand Tax-payers: Donate to UN Agencies and their strategies. Because UN/WEF strategic partnership they also  donate to WEF also. Auckland City Council Website publish the promotion of the WEF. Central and Local Government are executing the strategies of UN/WEF SDGS & Targets. Sustainability is a global advertising pun. Smart technology relates to the strategies used to accelerate UN Agenda 2030. Technocracy is the science of social engineering. The focus is on Resource Management and Population Control. The theory of Malthusian (Marxist).

Resource Management Act: Is high regulated and will become much more so. This is a technocratic governance system to control peoples diets, the way they live. Behaviour  re-engineering. Auckland C40 Global City includes global dietary plan- more plant based foods and much less meat. All Local Councils implementing the measuring of our carbon footprint to change our behaviour (travel, food, energy etc.,) Equates to the New Normal – The Great Reset- UN Agenda 2030 Global Development Goals to transform all life on this planet by means of Corporate Capture and slavery.

Socialism- Communism: Are bed partners. Mahuta and her mystical taniwha friendship with the CCP Red Dragon.

Self Empowerment: Solutions include self-empowerment, you cannot walk in another’s shoes. A valuable source of information, knowledge walking alongside like minded people. Spread the truth. Do your research. The truth is out there. Live your inner truth. Be aware but not fearful of digital censorship, fear is a number one killer. Note the medical tyranny and serious violations of Human Rights. Reject vaccine certification and vaccine passports.  Use cash where-ever possible. Reject digital wallet. Reject new smart meters. Be aware that Smart TVs have an invisible camera within them, if you do not turn it off it can be hacked through the use of Netflix. You have been listened to and viewed in your own private home. (Have already experienced this hacking). Do not take part in COVID19 tests or COVID19 jabs. Do not trust this government (regime). I urge you to gain  Moral Courage.

Electioneering: Vocally push for ‘Citizens Initiated Binding Referendums’ and a Constitution set in concrete for the Sovereign Peoples of New Zealand-ALL New Zealanders this election year. When you hear an MP call for a referendum remember there is no binding referendum for the people of NZ therefore the government (regime) will always have the last decision making rights. Break the cycle of Red, Blue, Green and Maori Party. Support and encourage minor freedom fighting parties who are speaking out publicly about the tyranny that exists in New Zealand (Parties that come together under one umbrella).

Yet another fear mongering strategy: The pandemic is not going away. New variants a new crisis and the shite goes on. The propaganda machine -many more people are dying of COVID19.

DEBUNKING THIS FEAR MONGERING PROPAGANDA- Here is the Truth:-The World Health Organization last year requested all UN Member Nations to classify COVID19 deaths in alignment with them. 10^th March 2022 NZ Government enacted that ‘Any person who had a COVID19 positive test, if they died within a month of that test they are then counted as a COVID 19 death. This window of time can be extended. In the UK it has been extended in some cases to 60 days. Therefore other deaths such as suicide and post jab deaths etc.,  are hidden. Remember the man that was shot by police in New Lynn Auckland, the propaganda machine called this a COVID19 death.

Arderns Global Christchurch Call: Is this all part and parcel of the strategy to implement UN Agenda 2030.  (Gun Buy Back Scheme) and Hate Speech- Censorship

The UN Global Compact of Migration signed by Winston Peters December 2018: Is this all part of UN Agenda 2030 strategy to rid us of our sovereign nation in favour of globalization (global citizenship) ? WEF Klaus Schwab stated that ‘sovereign nations’ will no longer exist.

Ardern’s Climate Emergency- Climate Refugee’s in host countries.. is this also a crucial part of implementing UN Agenda 2030 ?.

Central Bank Digital Currency- Is this all part of implementing UN Agenda 2030?

The Replacement of the Resource Management Act into 3 New Legislations. Three Waters, He Pua Pua are these all part of the strategy to implement UN Agenda 2030 development Goals?

The Mandating of COVID19 jabs. Arderns purchasing enough jabs for 2 shots in the arm for every New Zealander- man, woman and child. Is this a crucial part of the action plan to implement UN Agenda 2030 (SDGs 14 of the 17 relate to jabs) IA 2030 Global Strategy of Inoculation-Vaccination. 2020-2039 The Decade Of Action. Is this a crucial part of UN Agenda 2030 strategy?

The Therapeutics Products Bill. Strictly regulate Natural health products. Significantly increase off label medicines drugs across New Zealand. Note off label drugs are unapproved drugs and medicines. COVID19 jab number four was not approved by Medsafe was an off label drug. Off label drugs can only be given to a limited number of people.    Pfizer-Moderna had stated that each country, state would have to seek their own approval system for authorizing the jabs. Is this a crucial part of UN Agenda 2030 strategy?

Increased political policing and violence: At Parliamentary grounds was this part of UN Agenda 2030 strategy to control people’s voices and actions.. compliance and control ?

Targeting Farmers: No Farmers No Food. Those that control the food control the people, the same applies to fresh water. Is this also a critical part of UN Agenda 2030 strategy?

WAKE UP NEW ZEALAND NOW. Our Sovereign nation of people (New Zealanders) are under attack from the MPs that you voted in

PLEASE SHARE, SHARE, SHARE.

HATE SPEECH FACT SHEET.  This Fact Sheet has been written for Family First by Rodney Lake “Free speech is my right to say what you don’t want to hear” GEORGE ORWELL In a free and open society, distasteful opinions are met with open inquiry, civil dialogue and debate. If I don’t like what you say, even if I find it offensive, I meet your ideas with my own in an attempt to discover something approaching the truth. But this is all about to change, with potentially devastating consequences

WHO DECIDES WHAT’S “HATEFUL”? One of the most disturbing realities of criminalising “hateful” speech is that there is simply no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes “hate” in speech. For a law to be just, those who are controlled by it must be able to clearly see what it permits and what it forbids – and hate speech laws have proven throughout history to be unable to do this. Without a clear definition, how will you know when or if you have broken the law?

“There is no jurisdiction in the world where a statute has been enacted that offers a clear definition of what hate speech is. Consequently, it is left to the police and the courts to determine. This raises the problem of citizens not knowing precisely where the boundary of criminality of speech begins.” Historian and Professor, Dr Paul Moon

Imagine road laws with strict penalties for speeding, but with no speed limits in those laws, or no speed limits posted on our roads; just a vague sense that the courts get to decide on a case-by-case basis if you were speeding or not. You could never know if you were breaking the law and would live in constant fear of punishment. This would be bad law.

CULTURAL FRAGILITY Another problem is the growing fragility of a society increasingly subject to emotionally-based reasoning. Those who are easily “triggered” by offence tend to automatically presume hateful motives where none exist. Criticism and ridicule end up being construed as harmful and thus the desire to treat them as criminal acts. Traditional beliefs about human sexuality and identity, which have been held by the majority of humankind across diverse cultures for thousands of years, are only recently construed as “hateful” by the LGBT community.

Some passages from the Bible are indeed insulting. After all, who wants to be told they are a sinner? Yet the claim that “We are all sinners in need of forgiveness” is central to the Christian faith and has never been motivated by “hate”, quite the contrary. Under these proposed laws, people’s presumed reactions to your speech will become crucial to determining criminal intent. You may not actually intend harm, but if your speech is considered as showing hatred towards a particular group of people, you can be charged with inciting hatred and face a criminal conviction

So the first and most important question in the debate on hate speech is: What constitutes “hate”? Who gets to decide? Who will be the moral arbiters who determine when and if someone is guilty of “hateful” speech?

YOUR RIGHT TO SPEAK = YOUR RIGHT TO HEAR = YOUR RIGHT TO THINK The right to freedom-of-speech may seem minor to most kiwis who typically don’t have public platforms under threat. But this issue runs much deeper than just your right to speak, as it also includes your right to HEAR, and your right to THINK. You have a right to hear both sides of any debate3 – even viewpoints which are wrong or offensive to you. Laws which prevent others from speaking freely result in you no longer hearing opinions you might want to hear and evaluate for yourself. You have a right to offend, but also a right to be offended, meaning you have a right to hear ideas and perspectives which you disagree with

In addition, if I say you’re free to sit anywhere in the room, but I will punish you if you don’t sit on the chair I’ve chosen for you, then you are not truly free. Likewise, freedom of conscience means you can believe what you want, but hate speech laws will forbid you from expressing viewpoints which deviate from a vocal minority. So are you really free to think what you want?

Freedom of conscience – the freedom to think – is not truly free if you are not free to act on your beliefs and speak your mind.

A Speak Up For Women billboard (see below) was removed recently in Wellington. In a statement, billboard company Go Media said it was removed as soon as the company started fielding calls from offended New Zealanders. 4 Speak up for Women sought to hold public meetings to highlight threats to protected female-only spaces by biological men identifying as women. They have been subject to an intense smear campaign, uncharitably labelled a “hate group”, and harassed by public officials, councillors and mayors seeking to cancel their events. There is little doubt, if hate speech laws existed today, they would have been used to full effect to shut down this group

NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT Unfortunately, however, some will abuse their right of free speech with ‘shock tactics’ intentionally designed to inflict deep hurt and offence to gain attention for their cause. We must not be afraid to call such behaviour out as intentionally offensive and unwarranted. Free speech is not an absolute right, and the right to offend and be offended is not an end in itself, but simply the best means we have of wrestling with competing truth claims in the midst of conflicting viewpoints. Exercising free speech responsibly and thoughtfully is the best antidote to hate speech. But we still have a moral obligation to others to speak respectfully and kindly, even in disagreement.

SPEECH IS ALREADY LIMITED There are many things we are not free to speak about. Commonly accepted boundaries and laws set limits on free expression when that expression conflicts with the rights and protections of others. Examples includes laws on: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food-labelling, nondisclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, public security, perjury and more. These restrictions on your freedom of speech are widely accepted as part of a civil society. Likewise, threatening and abusive speech is also already banned because the consequences of harm can be directly linked to the speech in question.

EXISTING LAWS ALREADY OUTLAW HATE CRIMES “Hate crimes” are already illegal! A “hate crime” is an offence motivated by a hostility to the victim because they are a member of a protected group. The Human Rights Act makes it unlawful to incite hostility or discriminate against a group based on their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins, or to discriminate against people based on their sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status or sexual orientation under the Act. Conduct amounting to a hate crime (e.g. assault) has been well defined throughout existing laws to ensure such crimes are punished justly. Laws which already address harmful speech include:6

The Human Rights Act 1993 • The Summary Offences Act 1981 • The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 • The Broadcasting Act 1989 • The Harassment Act 1997 • The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 • The Sentencing Act 2002.

For example, the Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits speech that is “likely to excite hostility or ill-will against”7 a person because of their identity in one of the above racial or ethnic groups. So, for example, if you try to incite a mob to go beat up Asian people, you can be charged with inciting violence under these laws – even if the mob never commits those acts. There isn’t the need for further criminal laws to address such acts of hate and incitement to violence because such laws already exist!

SO WHY THE PROPOSED LAW CHANGES? Law changes are proposed to address what is believed to be missing: specifically, the “incitement of hatred and discrimination” against ‘protected groups’ – which will be expanded to include all groups listed in the Human Rights Act (see above). The effect will be to significantly lower the bar for actions to have criminal intent, from the current “incitement of hostility or violence” to a much more worrisome and ill-defined “incitement of hatred”. The current Ministry of Justice discussion document proposes a person “would break the law if they did so by being threatening, abusive or insulting”8 So you could potentially commit a criminal offence simply by insulting someone who belongs to one of these ‘protected groups’.

‘HATE’ SPEECH? If you said “Only women give birth”, are you intentionally inciting hatred and discrimination, or simply stating what you believe to be a biological truth? ‘The proposed law also seeks to expand the above list of protected groups to include gender identity, to “clarify the protections for trans, gender diverse and intersex people”. This will include “gender expression and gender identity”9 . This means any speech deemed offensive to transgender people could be considered a criminal act punishable with fines or imprisonment.

The Reverend Dr Bernard Randall was appointed Chaplain of Trent College in the UK in 2015 to provide pastoral care, share the Christian faith and lead services in the school’s chapel. In a recent sermon, he defended the pupils’ right to question the school’s introduction of new LGBT policies, and encouraged respect and debate on ‘identity ideologies.’ Following the sermon, Dr Randall was reported by the school to PREVENT, the anti-terrorism unit which normally identifies those at risk of radicalisation. He was eventually made redundant by the school. His 12-day employment tribunal hearing has been delayed until September 2022.10

Australian tennis great Margaret Court holds the alltime record of 24 grand slam single titles. But as the Pastor of Victory Life Centre in Perth, her comments on the redefinition of marriage, homosexuality and the transgender community have sparked protests and calls to rename Court Arena (named after her) including by fellow tennis greats Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King, and John McEnroe who labelled Court Australia’s “crazy aunt” (apparently this is not hate speech).11

THE TRUE GOAL: INTIMIDATION AND SELF-CENSORSHIP The hidden agenda behind such laws is the development of a culture of fear and self-censorship for the purpose of political intimidation and control. Thoughts and ideas which are undesirable to special-interest groups will be able to be silenced simply by framing them as “hateful”. Such groups will claim to believe in free speech, just as long as it’s speech THEY approve of

The result will be a population too afraid to express unpopular opinions, and no longer participating in the vital democratic process of debate and civil discourse necessary for a free and open society. “The very last thing New Zealand needs is the chilling effect of hate speech police stifling our thoughts and monitoring our every utterance. Yet, if the law changes go ahead, the result will be that fewer Kiwis will openly speak their mind for fear the Police will come knocking on their door. It will indeed be an ominous day for New Zealand if the Police become the enforcement unit of ruling politicians and their activist allies against free citizens expressing contrary opinions…” Muriel Newman, former MP – “Muzzling free speech”12

NECESSARY FOR SOCIAL REFORMS Freedom of Speech has been essential to the success of significant past reforms such as: the abolition of slavery, the right for women to vote, the American civil rights movement, opposition to apartheid in South Africa, and the Waitangi Tribunal. It’s easy to claim, in hindsight, the outcomes of these significant cultural moments should have been obvious. But we forget these battles were fought by courageous people publicly voicing unpopular opinions against the prevailing attitudes of the time. Hate speech laws would have been a significant threat to the fearless voices of reform in those movements.

ON MULTIPLE FRONTS The proposed law changes are just one front on which freedom of speech is threatened. The battle is also being fought on four other fronts where social, rather than criminal, sanctions are being used as weapons of political intimidation.

FIRST: Workplace Intimidation The infiltration of social activism, political agendas and “woke politics” into corporate workplaces and policies is very concerning. Employees who hold views not considered politically-correct in the workplace are bullied into silence and self-censorship through intimidation, ridicule and threat of losing positions or employment. Many privately report they stay silent on personal political or religious views for reasons of self-preservation. In the workplace, tolerance has become a one-way street.

SECOND: Corporate Cowardice Threats of boycotts and brand-reputation-damage for businesses who do not follow the latest woke narrative are increasingly common, resulting in corporate cowardice in an attempt to appease the activist mob. Company directors and government department leaders should stop being intimidated and distracted by woke demands, and focus on business and mission interests ahead of political ones. Another form of corporate cowardice is book banning, where book sellers remove titles from their catalogues which are supposedly “harmful”. This is entirely hypocritical in the example of Amazon, who have delisted titles which question gender ideology e.g., “When Harry Became Sally” by Ryan T. Anderson, while still selling Hitler’s political manifesto, “Mein Kampf”, for the purpose of academic analysis.13

THIRD: Big-Tech Censorship This includes intimidation from takedowns, shadowbanning, traffic throttling, demonetisation, and suspension of accounts. The passive acceptance in the general public of these increasingly heavy-handed tactics of big-tech and corporate censorship, supposedly for our own protection, is a very concerning threat to our open and democratic society

FOURTH: “Cancel Culture” Public figures and professionals are lynched on social media and de-platformed for questioning popular woke ideology, sending a clear message of intimidation to others to selfcensor. Public meetings and platforms should be a place where the free exchange of ideas are debated in a pursuit of truth. But disruptive protests, venue cancelations, and even threats of violent protests are being used as excuses to shut down such events

These four types of censorship and intimidation have resulted in the silencing of dissenting ideas and open dialogue on continuous issues which deserve to be openly debated.

WHAT IS WOKE? To be Woke is to have been “woken up” to the important social justice issues of the day and hold a more radical progressive view on issues of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality and identity. Being Woke means being aware of injustices according to progressive values, and embracing social reengineering in an attempt to deconstruct traditional values and institutions (such as the nuclear family and the Church) which are falsely seen as a threat to addressing those injustices

DRIVING UNSAVOURY IDEAS UNDERGROUND An unforeseen result of the suppression of free speech is the driving of genuinely hateful, radicalised and dangerous groups (such as neo-Nazi groups) underground into private dark-web echo-chambers. Dr Paul Moon says, “The case could be made that restrictions on the open expression of ideas could end up intensifying radicalisation… Anyone who thinks that a change in law will diminish hate clearly has little grasp on history.”14 You can’t always fix hateful and obnoxious ideas simply by banning them. Rather, when allowed into the sunlight of public discourse, they can be thoroughly and publicly discredited. The result being those who are susceptible to such dangerous ideas can be inoculated against them.

“Underlying prejudices, injustices or resentments are not addressed by arresting people: they are addressed by the issues being aired, argued and dealt with preferably outside the legislative process. For me, the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed.” UK Comedian Rowan Atkinson (a.k.a. Mr Bean)

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS The discussion document the Ministry of Justice released in June 2021 raises significant unanswered questions, beyond the broader principles highlighted above, including:

Why are only some groups protected and not others? The proposed laws want to expand existing “incitement” protections to other presumably vulnerable groups such as gay, lesbian, transgender, non-binary, etc. Yet those groups tend to be those which progressive left-leaning “woke” people want to protect. Why only those groups? Aren’t all humans hurt by hate, regardless of their group membership? Will Christians be a protected group?

The most prominent recent case of cancel culture and the consequence of perceived ‘hate speech’ is Israel Folau who tweeted firstly his personal view opposing the redefinition of marriage, and then in response to a specific question put to him, a paraphrase of a bible passage. The public reaction to his social media posts was entirely disproportionate to his actions and amounted to a public lynching intended to destroy him and his career. If hate speech laws existed at the time, it can be assumed they would have been applied to his situation without mercy

Why such harsh penalties? Proposed penalties of up to three years imprisonment and fines of up to $50,000 are entirely disproportionate to the presumed harm suffered. Common assault is only punishable by up to one-year imprisonment. Why is the punishment for hate speech crimes three times greater? What does that say to the victims of actual violent crime?

What about conflicting interests? If a mosque insults an LGBT group with its teaching on homosexuality, while the same members of the LGBT group insult Islam with its teaching on organised religion, whose right to be protected from “hate” would prevail? Or could they both be prosecuted?

Can the Police and Courts cope? How will our already stretched criminal justice system cope with the flood of bitter complainants and defendants eager to have their rights protected from “hateful” ideas? Is it really the job of the police and courts to mediate disputes involving offended feelings?

Is there a difference between public and private speech? Will the expression of opinions in private places be protected under the law? Or can I be punished for expressing offensive views to friends and family around the BBQ or dinner table?16

What about political viewpoints? The line between political views and moral views is impossible to define. What if political views questioning government policy are deemed offensive and “hateful”? Could I go to prison for merely insulting someone’s political beliefs?

What about religious expression? Will reading a Bible verse in church, or a passage from the Koran in a mosque break the law? Could my pastor/minister face imprisonment and fines for merely teaching certain (offensive to some) passages from the Bible? Will my religious expression be protected?

CONCLUSION Proposed hate-speech laws are being smuggled in under the pretence of ‘the public good’. After all, who can disagree with the idea of banning hate? But beneath the shiny veneer of good intentions lies one of the most dangerous law changes our country has faced in recent history. Belonging to a group should not afford special protections that result in the removal of the rights of others to disagree with them. Political activists and special interest groups will miss the important distinction between hate-speech, and merely speech they hate, and end up using such laws as tools of political intimidation to punish opponents and shut down debate in the marketplace of ideas. Laws already exist banning the incitement of violence. There is far too much ambiguity in what constitutes “hate”. And the risk

SPEAK UP Exercise your freedom of speech and make your voice heard. Make a submission to your MP, the Ministry of Justice or any future Select Committee considering such laws. Visit HateSpeech.nz for further instructions and forward this Fact Sheet onto others to help get the word out. of misapplication and abuse for political ends is far too high. These laws must be rejected for the sake of a fair, open and democratic society

In 2018, Warkworth baker Kath received a request to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding which she politely refused due to her personal beliefs on the definition of marriage. Consequently, she was harassed with days of intense media coverage and vitriolic ‘hate speech’ accusations and physical threats including her home address on her social media accounts and website.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.  GEORGE ORWELL / SELWYN DUKE

Supporting Family First NZ. Carol Sakey

https://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Hate-Speech-Fact-Sheet.pdf

In December 2020, the report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019 made a number of recommendations to improve existing laws relating to hate speech.

In the previous year, the Commission researched and published a resource on the legal framework governing hate speech – Kōrero Whakamauāhara: Hate Speech. The resource includes definitions of hate speech and outlines the legal framework in New Zealand and in similar overseas jurisdictions.

In addition, during September and October 2019, the Commission arranged and facilitated engagements for communities who had experienced, or were at risk of experiencing, hate speech. These engagements helped to inform the Commission’s approach to hate speech.

New Zealand currently has no comprehensive hate speech laws. The closest are provisions within section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 which prohibit incitement of racial disharmony.

These make it a criminal offence for a person to publicly use language which is “threatening, abusive, or insulting” to a group of people on the basis of their “colour, race, or ethnic or national origins”, and which is intended to “excite hostility or ill will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule” that group.

This is punishable by a fine of up to NZ$7,000 or up to three months imprisonment.

What the proposed reforms would do

As part of its broader recommendations to promote social cohesion, the royal commission suggested some reasonably narrow changes to the existing Human Rights Act provisions:

• add incitement of disharmony on the basis of religion
• move the criminal offence to the Crimes Act 1961 and increase the penalty
• tighten the definitions within the provision.

The proposals in the cabinet paper would do all this, specifically increasing the punishment to a fine of up to $50,000 or maximum of three years imprisonment. This would put hate speech punishment in the same general league as making a false declaration or assault with intent to injure.

The language would also be revised to make it an offence to intentionally “stir up, maintain, or normalise hatred” against a nominated group through “threatening, abusive, or insulting communications, including inciting violence”.

This is narrower than the existing law, meaning speech intended to bring a group into “contempt or ridicule” would no longer be covered.

The cabinet paper goes significantly further than the royal commission is in its recommendation the new law be extended beyond race and religion to cover all categories protected under section 21 of the Human Rights Act. These include age, sex, disability, religion, race, sexual orientation, political opinion and a number of others.

The paper also proposes a similar expansion of the civil provision in the Human Rights Act (largely ignored by the royal commission), and adding a prohibition on incitement of discrimination.

It also proposes clarifying the grounds of discrimination to specifically include gender identity and sex characteristics.

A risk of over-reach: By and large, this is a measured proposal. The threshold for criminal liability is very high, requiring a high degree of animosity and an effect far beyond offending an individual.  Despite some claims to the contrary, the proposed laws would not cover (for example) the unkindness and rudeness implicit in casually mis-gendering a trans person.

But by including every ground of discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act, there is some risk the proposed changes become overly broad. In particular, political opinion is an area in which robust, even hostile, debate is important, and there is potential for a “chilling effect”.

Reasonable people may well disagree on this and other aspects of the proposal. But at this stage the cabinet paper is just that — a set of proposals. A more detailed discussion document will be put out for public consultation. One would hope it will include a more precise draft of the proposed legislation.

Hate speech regulation is a fraught topic with important considerations on all sides. It deserves serious consideration and public debate before these proposals finally become law.