A Christian response to suggested “Hate Speech” law changes, and some proposed re-wording
byDr Stuart Lange, on behalf of the New Zealand Christian Network
Some principles we begin from…
Nobody comes to any issue without some preconceptions, and it can be helpful to state where we are coming from. So, as people of Christian faith…
We are deeply committed to God, to love for all, to God’s truth revealed in Christ and the scriptures, to the intrinsic God-given equality of all people, and to justice, righteousness, grace, mercy, and peace.
We absolutely reject all racism.
We deplore all abusive language, name-calling, hatefulness, and violence – by anyone, and to anyone.
We believe that, ideally, all people should relate to one another with gentleness and respect, even when they strongly disagree. Secular people should respect religious people, and vice versa. People of faith should relate respectfully to people of other faiths.
We believe that, if we are to remain a free society, our freedoms of religious belief (or unbelief) and of expression must be carefully and unequivocally protected.
We believe that a wide diversity of viewpoints and freedom to debate important issues is extremely important, even though it is at the cost of most people sometimes being exposed to views we find objectionable or offensive.
We believe that the State should avoid all attempts to control the thoughts and speech of its citizens, except where the beliefs and opinions of people are unquestionably inciting extreme hatefulness and violence.
What is behind the proposed “hate speech” laws, and why do they matter?
The Government consultation document has presented the proposed “Hate Speech” law changes as a revision of existing legislation to help restrain extreme racism, and as extending protections against “hate speech” to “groups” defined by sex, sexuality, religion, and disability, and thus to build a “greater social cohesion”. But many people see what is proposed as a dangerous limitation of public debate and freedom of expression, in which constant pressure from some groups could lead to a growing censorship of public debate.
A key question is around the precise scope and wording of the proposed changes, particularly in relation to exactly what is meant by the words “hate” and “hatred”. For different people, and in different contexts, these words carry a range of meanings and implications.
In existing legislation it is already a civil offence (see Section 161 (c) of the Human Rights Act 1993) to use “words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting, being matter or words likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any such group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons”. This prohibition on incitement only applies to racism. We agree that for the sake of public safety this existing law is appropriate, to help restrain those ranters who spew forth appalling racist rhetoric, stirring up disharmony and violence. We also fully agree that the law should be extended to electronic communication.
Because of the significant risk of the proposed law changes increasingly suppressing freedom of expression, however, we have some caution about the list of groups covered by incitement provisions being extended from just race and nationality to also include groups based on religion, disability, sex, and sexuality. We could accept that, though, if (1) the threshold of criminality remains very high and (2) the nature and limits of “hate speech” are clearly defined.
The key problem with what is proposed
We agree in principle that it should be criminal to stir up extreme animosity and/or incite violence towards any group in society.
The core problem with the wording proposed in the consultation document, however, is that it removes the definitions of incitement that are in the Human Rights Act (see above) and instead substitutes the very elastic term “hatred” – with no adequate definitions.
We believe the word “hatred” is too broad and subjective, and – in the absence of very clear definition – is worryingly vulnerable to freedom-stifling misapplications.
In our societal context of increasingly clamorous identity politics, the word “hatred” is highly loaded. Why not stick with incitement to “hostility”, or change it to “extreme hostility”? Across the western world, the introduction of “hate speech” laws is primarily driven by the desire to restrict the expression of views which disagree with LGBT ideologies. Is that what the Government primarily has in view here?
Our concern grows when we read that it would not only be a crime to incite “hatred”, but also to “maintain or normalise hatred”. This too (especially the “and normalise” phrase) is capable of many interpretations and misapplications, and we believe this proposed wording should be dropped.
Over time, we fear, the wording of the proposed law changes would make it all too easy for various secular, religious, and sexuality activists to hunt down any expression of viewpoint that does not support their own views, or which they find offensive, and to claim that it is “hateful” to their group and therefore unlawful. The police and law courts may end up very busy.
All this poses some significant risks for the freedom of our society, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights:
“13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.
“14 Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
The only way to avoid oppressive outcomes with the proposed law change is for there to be included some extremely clear explanations of what inciting “hatred” does and does not mean.
Some sample questions…
Under the proposed law changes, could anyone be prosecuted for denying a core belief or doctrine of any religion, and thus potentially causing offence?
Could it become criminal for anyone to say that they do not believe in sex transitioning for children and adolescents?
Could it become criminal for anyone to say that they do not believe it is fair for “trans” people born as males to compete in women’s sport?
Could it become criminal for someone to say that they do not personally believe that same-sex relationships or same-sex marriages are intended by God? (This is not “hatred”, but just a matter of religious belief and expression)?
Could anyone be prosecuted for reading out or referring to – in public, or even in a religious gathering – any passage or verse in the Bible, Qur’an, or any other sacred religious writing that asserts a doctrinal belief about Allah, Jesus, or salvation, or against unbelief, or against any behaviour, and thus will likely offend someone somewhere?
If the answer to any of those five questions is “yes, or maybe”, then for the sake of everyone’s freedoms the proposed law changes must be worded so as to avoid that.
If the answer is, “no” (or as it says in the consultation document, “only extreme hate speech is criminalised, and that there must be an intention to cause others to develop and strengthen hatred towards a group”), then we need to see that protection clearly reflected in the actual wording of the proposed law changes.
If the answer is, “we don’t know, and we won’t say, but over time we will see how the police and the courts interpret this law in relation to society’s changing thinking”, then we can rightly be very concerned, and may want to ponder what sort of oppressive, thought-controlling Orwellian society our children and mokopuna may inherit.
In our view, the only way for society to protect itself against unjust and tyrannical outcomes through its proposed “hate speech” laws is to state as precisely as possible exactly what “hate speech” is, and exactly what it isn’t.
“In the context of this law, “inciting hatred” means to incite extreme hostility, to deliberately and maliciously vilify with the clear intention of stirring up loathing, hostility, contempt, or violence towards a group; it does not mean to express disagreement, criticism or caution in relation to any of the views of a group, or simply to express beliefs and views which members of any group may consider objectionable or even offensive.”
We believe the Government’s forthcoming Bill must clearly provide some such explicit clarification and balance, and should drop the “maintain and normalise hatred” line. If it does so, these law changes may yet possibly be safe, and may prove acceptable to most people. Nevertheless, whatever our religion (or our lack of it), all New Zealanders need to remain highly vigilant in protecting critically important human freedoms of belief and expression.
Freedom of speech is currently under serious threat in New Zealand. This was made very clear in recent days, when both the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister gave misleading interviews on the meaning of their proposed hate speech law. What they said was vague and confusing, and contrary to the document they had released. If you haven’t seen Tova O’Brien’s excellent (and quite disturbing) interview with the Justice Minister, you can find that interview here.
When given three clear and likely scenarios (see 5:37 in the interview above), the Justice Minister was unable to say whether the speech in those scenarios would be a crime. If the Justice Minister, the creator and the designated public educator of these new hate speech laws cannot answer simple questions about his own proposal, how are the public supposed to know what is or isn’t hate speech, and how are the police supposed to properly discern what is hate speech? How can there be a punishment of up to three years in prison, when the definition of hate is so extremely woolly and subjective?
Later, when the Prime Minister was asked about the proposal on NewsHub’s AM Show, she made seven mistaken or misleading claims about her government’s own proposal. You can read more about this in Tova O’Brien’s outstanding follow-up piece, “Jacinda Ardern has misled the public and shut down debate on hate speech laws.” It should be noted that Tova O’Brien personally supports strengthening NZ’s hate speech laws, so her criticisms here are especially significant.
If you have not read the current discussion document on the proposed hate speech legislation, put out by the government, you can do so here.
In that document, the Government states, “The Government wants to foster greater social cohesion in Aotearoa so that it is a place where everyone feels that they belong.” What the government seems to be unaware of is that almost all positive changes in our society have happened because of western society’s commitment to free speech. Things like the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, improved treatment of sexual minorities, and labour laws all came about because there was free speech. If our goal is a better and more just society, legislating against hate speech and removing free speech is definitely not the way to do it.
Why is this important for Christians? There are many reasons, but here is one. This proposal is often presented as trying to stop “hatred”. But anyone who has been closely following media or western culture in the last few years realizes that “hatred” can now mean nothing more than mere disagreement. Just disagreeing with someone publicly can now be grounds that you “hate” that person or “group”, if they feel offended by what you say, or even “could” be offended by what you say.
Suppose the law becomes that you may no longer say anything that “offends” anyone. You say something that expresses your deep beliefs, which many people may disagree with, but most people will not be actually offended by. But is it realistic, though, to think that you’re going to come out and say something important about your beliefs and not offend somebody somewhere, even if it is only one person in a thousand? If that’s the case, the proposed law would make everyone think twice about ever saying anything important about what they believe, because someone somewhere will always be offended, and could lay a complaint.
So why is this so important for Christians? Because by its very nature the Christian gospel is going to be offensive to some people. It just is! (and anything else important will likewise often be offensive to those who have different beliefs). If we as Christians value our freedom to share and live the Gospel, we need to make our voices heard against this slippery and dangerous government proposal.
Two things can be true at once. On the one hand we condemn in the strongest possible terms the atrocity that happened in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, and absolutely say no to violence and to all incitement of violence. And on the other hand we can still vigorously uphold the principles of free speech in our free society, even though we often disagree with other people’s opinions and sometimes find them deeply offensive.
Recently, I have seen making the rounds a finding from the Barna Group (an evangelical research organization focused on the intersection of faith and culture). Barna’s finding comes out of a huge study they did about how the next generation views the church and Christian faith. Their conclusion is: “This generation doesn’t just want to know whether Christianity is true; they want to see that it is good.”
I have also seen some people use this conclusion of Barna as a reason to justify doing away with some of Christianity’s more difficult teachings. Not only doctrines like final judgement or the exclusivity of Christ, but also teachings that come up against our current NZ cultural values in regards to sexual ethics. They argue: “people want a Christian faith that is good. These traditional teachings of Christians are not good, so let’s do away with them.”
But here’s the rub: how do we know what is good, unless we know what is true? Just because our culture views something as good does not mean it is actually good. Further, just because people find certain Christian beliefs abhorrent does not mean they are actually abhorrent. Christians have been accused of not “being good” since the beginning. Look at this quote from the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in AD 115–117…
“Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd called Chrestians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become fashionable.”[1]
Today is not the first time in history where people have found certain Christian doctrines unappealing!
Ok, what is Barna really trying to say? That the next generation has realized that Christianity is not just about having the correct beliefs (though correct beliefs are important), but that how we live our lives in the light of those beliefs is equally important if not more so.
Christianity is not simply: “Believe this doctrine, and you are good to go”. No, Jesus tells us: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Matt 16:24). Jesus is calling us to action. We need to love God, love truth, and love others. For example, we need to love the truth that Jesus died for us while we were still sinners, and thus love the truth that we also need to love others while they are still sinners.
If we want to reach the next generation, how should we live? Not just by believing something different than our neighbour, but by living and loving, in consistency with the truth both revealed and lived out by Jesus.
Is our life both distinctive and good? Are we spending our money and time any differently than the non-Jesus-believing world around us? Are we just scrolling through social media, watching Netflix, and taking our kids to sport? The next generation is looking for something more. They do want truth. They also want to know that Christianity will do good in the world. They want truth that leads to action on big issues like racial injustice, the environment, and poverty. They want both clarity and grace, on things like sex, identity, meaning and purpose. Jesus reminds us that following him costs something. It cost his life. And Barna’s research reminds us that Jesus calls us to radical life change. That includes loving others at their worst, just like Jesus loves us.
We don’t show love by abandoning truth, so as to be called “good” by our culture. We show love by loving God, loving the truth, and going out of our way to love others.
– – –
[1] Tacitus, Annals 15.44. Translation lightly adapted for readability from Tacitus Annals Books 13–16, Loeb Classical Library 322 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937), 283, 285. The translation has also been adapted to use the spelling Chrestians rather than Christians.
Freedom to believe and practice religious faith is considered a basic human right. It has not always been so. In the early church, great numbers of Christian believers were persecuted or killed by the Roman State, which demanded on pain of death that everyone worship the emperors and the pagan gods, In medieval times, the State was involved in burning heretics (and later some Protestants) at the stake, and many Catholics were executed during the reign of Elizabeth I. In modern times, Christians in many parts of the world are subject to discrimination, violence, and bloodshed, as are members of some other faiths.
By comparison, Christians in New Zealand lead a much easier life. We need to be aware, however, that any poorly-written legislation in the areas of ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-conversion therapy’ could pose significant risks to the freedoms of religion and expression for Christians, and also for people of other faiths. But we can acknowledge there is a case for changes to legislation that would deal more effectively with extreme and deliberate incitements to hatred and violence.
It’s often been claimed that it was the intolerance of Christians, from the apostle Paul to the Renaissance Popes, that led to the Enlightenment’s secular cry for “freedom of religion” – and even for freedom from religion. The secularist assumption is that religion fosters bigotry, and violence towards those who are different, and that its enlightened secular thought that fosters peace and pluralism.
But is all that actually true? Are there in fact Christian origins to the concept of freedom of religion?
On his podcast Undeceptions, John Dickson (an Australian Christian author, speaker, historian, and media presenter) interviews Professor Robert Louis Wilken (an emeritus Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia) on the historic origins of freedom of religion. In contrast to the common perception that religious freedom was a secular Enlightenment idea, Wilken shows that religious freedom originated back in 312 through Constantine the first Christian Roman Emperor. Constantine declared: “Freedom and full liberty has been granted in accordance with the peace of our times to exercise free choice in worshipping as each one has seen fit. This has been done by us so that nothing may seem to be taken away from anyone’s honour or from any religion whatsoever.”
“Where did Constantine get this idea of religious liberty for all? Most of us, all these years later, take for granted that the state will grant complete freedom in spiritual matters. But for most of history, in most parts of the world, this simply was not the case. Religion was seen as too important to the health of society not to be regulated. The significance of religion lay mainly in that it secured prosperity for the state and victory over enemies, so long as the gods were duly honoured by the people….We do not have to speculate about where Constantine got his relatively “enlightened” views about religion outlined in the Edict of Milan. Two Christian thinkers had made a striking case for religious liberty well before Constantine defeated Maxentius and proclaimed himself a Christian. One of them was in the distant past, but his writings were still well known. The other became one of Constantine’s confidants.”
Check out Dickson’s book or podcast if you would like to know who these two Christian thinkers were.
Earthkeepers: A Circlewood Podcast on Creation Care and Spirituality
Jay is known for bringing unconventional thinking to his work—perspectives that confront status quo assumptions, and call into question what he calls the “industrial ethics” that cause us to be separated from the earth–and from one another. From his grounding in indigenous Maori culture, he offers thought-provoking insights that “cut new grooves of understanding” about how we might live differently with our ecologies.
