If the current select committee inquiry into the desirability of a "hate speech" law was intended merely to take the public temperature on the issue, then the submissions suggest that the mood is distinctly chilly. A hate speech law wasn't particularly likely before the inquiry, and seems less so now. Well and good.
There are simply too many problems associated with extending the suppression of speech, including unintended consequences. But it hardly seems a bad move to have the discussion. And - vain hope I know - it would be nice to think that certain interest groups would match their right to speak freely with some measure of social responsibility.
The two videos that prompted the Film and literature Board of Review to muse about a hate speech law -
Aids: What You Haven't Been Told and Gay Rights/Special Rights: Inside the Homosexual Agenda - are a disgrace. They contain lies, misrepresentation and baseless conspiracy of a kind that, were they directed at, say, Jews or Maori, they would be universally condemned.
I don't think their contents can be divorced from the kind of incidents listed in this GayNZ.com summary of what happens in the real world. So what do you do?
Peter Saxton has a well-rounded opinion piece on the matter in the Herald. Well worth reading.
It hardly needs noting that some of the organisations defending free speech on this score are also those which have spent years trying to curb the speech of others with vexatious complaints. The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (whose annual meeting that alleged defender of free speech, Stephen Franks, chose to address) is at it again, trying to trip up the Incredible Film Festival in court over its plans to screen the Japanese satire, Visitor Q. Fortunately, the judge doesn't seem too impressed. (Here's a recent story on the film's director.) These people clearly believe the only speech worth protecting is their own.
Carrying on the censorship theme, the reliable Kim Griggs got in touch with links to the Department of Internal Affairs reports behind the Listener cover story we've been discussing here this week. The original 2003 report is here, and Kim's story for BBC Online at the time (which I actually recall now) is here. The DIA's update to the 2003 figures is here.
What struck me about the reports is that while, as I noted, the leading age group for convictions involving trading of banned material (mostly, but not exclusively, child porn) is also the same as that which commits the most of all offences, these censorship offenders are largely not the same individuals committing those other common offences. They're white and middle class.
Brett Davidson noted this bit on the animal homeopathy course flap from the new Association of University Staff newsletter:
It seems, however, that Mr English may have been wide of the mark in his criticism. The Acting Chair of the Tertiary Education Commission, Kaye Turner, told NZPA that the homeopathy course in question has underpinned Fonterra's push to produce organic milk from animals which cannot be given chemical pharmaceuticals without losing their organic certification. She added that New Zealand's growing organic-export industry is dependent on alternative therapies, and this was a big factor behind the approval of the homeopathy (animal health) course at the Bay of Plenty College of Homeopathy.
Brett speculated that, "rather like Muriel Newman's chimerical "political correctness gone mad", this seems to be in truth another example of an organisation actually acting independently according to market needs."
Hmmm. I confess, I took English's characterisation of the course as one in "homeopathy for pets" or treating "cats, dogs and budgies" to be accurate. Turns out, it was quite dishonest. It actually doesn't matter whether you believe homeopathy works for cows, people or whatever. If the market says it will pay a premium for organic products, and that means animal homeopathy, then the market is right.
But - desperately flailing around for a bit of populist indignation that I can actually sign up to - it's a damn good thing the Whangarei police have finally admitted a "stuff-up" and apologised to Dennis Murphy and his son James, who was seriously assaulted last week. The police shelved the case, not bothering to interview a girl who was not only an eyewitness to the assault, but could give them a name for the attacker. Their subsequent comments that the matter was not important in the scheme of things verged on the insulting. I think a few of the recent police panics have hinged on individual decisions of a kind I wouldn't want to make, but this was a shocker.
Okay … I really need to venture out for lunch, but I'll do my darnedest to come back and compile and post the first volume of what I'm calling The Expat Files today. If so, I'll break the usual rule and send out another post to the mailing list. Really, the things I do for y'all …