Human Rights Commission

National pours cold water over Human Rights Commission and Police Commissioner Mike Bush’s Hate Speech ideas

Police are considering the advantages of introducing a specific hate speech crime to target anecdotal reports of an increase in attacks.

Just days ago a woman was charged with assault after an attack on a Muslim woman in Huntly, near Hamilton, which was filmed and posted on social media.

Police Commissioner Mike Bush raised the idea in a select committee review of NZ Police on Wednesday.

He said communities and the Human Rights Commission had been driving calls for specific hate crime legislation, according to RNZ.

“We have crime categories at the moment that do apply but we’re just working through the pros and cons of whether or not it would be the right thing to do to recommend a specific crime type,” he said.

Police Minister Paula Bennett questioned whether there was an increase in attacks or whether it was the result of wider coverage, something Mr Bush also raised. Read more »

Human Rights Commission starts anti-government campaign in election year

Labour’s Jacinda Ardern was the first to pile into this.  The Maori party didn’t take much longer.

The Māori Party is backing a campaign launched by the Human Rights Commission for an independent inquiry into the historic abuse of children in State care.

More than 100,000 children were in State care during the 1950s to the 1990s and the commission, along with iwi leaders and child advocates, is calling for an inquiry to determine how many were abused and what can be done to prevent it from happening again.

“I’ve heard the stories from people themselves, who as children were taken from homes that were actually more loving than the ones the State put them in. They are New Zealand’s lost generations,” said Māori Party co-leader Marama Fox. Read more »

Why is the Human Rights Commission shilling the Islamic Women’s Council to Radio New Zealand?

Yesterday the Islamic Women’s Council issued a press release against Donald Trump’s executive order and also blamed the attack in Canada on the Trump administration:

PRESS RELEASE: MUSLIM BAN & TERRORIST ATTACK IN CANADA

The Islamic Women’s Council sends its sincere condolences to the families of victims of the terror attack in Quebec, Canada. We know this senseless act is the culmination of a series of hate-fuelled incidents targeted at that particular mosque. “The killing in Canada today is no co-incidence, and we believe is linked to what is happening in their neighbouring country” said Chairperson, Dr Maysoon Salamah.

The Council condemns the policies of the Trump Administration in banning entry of Muslims, many of whom are fleeing horrific war and violence in their own countries, others who have been settled in the United States for many years and have valid residence permits.

“Not only is this policy in breach of human rights and international conventions, but it is also against all moral and ethical standards” Dr Maysoon Salamah said.   Read more »

Fairfax Fake news story attracts vicious anti-Semitism

While I may not like criticism when it is based on propaganda and is historically or otherwise inaccurate I nevertheless would not describe it as hate speech. Criticism of actions and policies and ideology is not hate speech and in a free society, criticism is to be encouraged as is an open debate about issues.

Fairfax journalist Pattrick Smellie wrote an opinion piece that can only be described as fake news which attracted not just criticism of Israel but actual vicious anti-Semitism.

Social media, for all its benefits, has allowed all kinds of lies and conspiracy theories to be circulated unchecked. It is therefore not surprising that anti-Semitism, which attracts lies and conspiracy theories like moths to a flame, has flourished in this forum. A false news story published in New Zealand last week has brought some classic anti-Semitism (and new anti-Semitism) to the fore on Facebook.

Fairfax journalist, Pattrick Smellie, claimed that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had declared war on NZ in a piece entitled “How Israel could wage ‘war’ on New Zealand”. Smellie’s false claim had previously been debunked by Fran O’Sullivan in the NZ Herald. Smellie’s article has since been partially edited in line with the facts. Evidently, an unnamed diplomat reportedly told Israeli media that Netanyahu had told New Zealand Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, that

“If you continue to promote this resolution from our point of view it will be a declaration of war. It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. We’ll recall our ambassador to Jerusalem.”

Benjamin Netanyahu

Read more »

So who in New Zealand stood up to condemn intolerance and hate?

194ff457609a0bd18f1c788355aa5389

Credit where credit is due. We do have in New Zealand groups willing to stand up and be counted and they deserve recognition. Below are the political parties and groups who responded to our article and video of Shaykh Dr Mohammad Anwar Sahib.

The Human Rights Commission says an Auckland man’s speeches condemning Jewish people are appalling and have no place in New Zealand…

“This kind of intolerance is not welcome here in any form: Prejudice against Jewish people has no place in New Zealand.”

…We have asked for an urgent response from FIANZ.”

The Human Rights Commission


The Administration Council of the Islamic Women’s Council would like to respond to the video containing clips of speeches posted online by Dr Mohammad Anwar Sahib.

Firstly, regarding the comments directed towards Jewish people, these are totally inappropriate and we unequivocally condemn any divisive comments of a similar nature.

… We regularly extend our hand in friendship to the Jewish community in New Zealand, and will continue to do so.

IWCNZ is particularly sensitive to the views represented by the comments towards women. The approach shown is a religious misinterpretation, in our opinion, and we are disappointed that certain religious leaders may encourage this damaging rhetoric.

-Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand


Read more »

It’s a start, weak, but a start, as Susan Devoy denounces Islamic hate preacher

Dame Susan Devoy

Dame Susan Devoy

Susan Devoy has been forced to act, even though it is a weak statement, it is at least a public statement from her:

The Human Rights Commission says an Auckland man’s speeches condemning Jewish people are appalling and have no place in New Zealand.

“We live in one of the most ethnically diverse nations on earth as well as one of the most peaceful: this is because we are a tolerant nation,” said Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy.

“This kind of intolerance is not welcome here in any form: Prejudice against Jewish people has no place in New Zealand.” Videos of speeches delivered by Shaykh Dr Mohammad Anwar Sahib at the Manukau mosque have been widely viewed online.

“We urge Kiwis to recognise that these are the views of a single person and are not held by every single Muslim New Zealander, however questions need to be answered,” said Dame Susan.   Read more »

The Australian and Cartoonist Bill Leak fight back against Aussie HRC

bill-leak-cartoon

In Australia, The Australian and their cartoonist Bill Leak are under investigation for the cartoon shown above.

The same thing happened here in New Zealand. The publisher was Whale Oil Beef Hooked and the cartoonist was Boomslang. Fortunately our Human Rights Commission is a toothless organisation and I simply ignored their bleating and that of the complainants.

The Australian and Bill Leak are fighting back against the Human Rights Commission.

Lawyers for cartoonist Bill Leak and The Australian have accused the Human Rights Commission of outright bias and warned of legal action to restrain the federal body and its head, Gillian Triggs, from investigating a drawing.

The newspaper yesterday ­issued its formal legal response to the commission after The ­Australian and Leak were put on notice that they were being ­investigated for alleged “racial hatred under the Racial Discrimination Act” for a cartoon ­depicting the neglect of indig­enous children by their parents.

The lawyers for Leak and the newspaper state that, if necessary, they will produce evidence to ­establish the August 4 cartoon was drawn in good faith and did not breach section 18C, and that indigenous people would ­testify they were not “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated” by it.

Their letter states they will rely on evidence from “sociologists and criminologists, as well as ­witnesses having direct daily ­exposure to the problems associated with juvenile crime and ­recidivism in remote Aboriginal communities, to establish that the point made by Leak’s cartoon is both a ‘genuine’ matter of concern and a legitimate issue of ‘public ­interest’’’.

Jodie Ball, the delegate for commission president Professor Triggs, advised the newspaper this month that an investigation under section 18C had been triggered by complainant Melissa Dinnison, who says she has ­“experienced ­racial hatred” and been discriminated against as a result of the ­cartoon.

In Leak’s and the newspaper’s reply yesterday to Professor Triggs, who has faced resignation calls this week after falsely claiming to a Senate committee that journalists at Melbourne’s The ­Saturday Paper fabricated her quotes, the commission is charged with “playing politics” with the welfare of children.

Read more »

“Feelings should not be subject to the law”

Australian Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm has decided to test a new race hate law known as the “insult and offend” law after being called an “angry white male.” He is doing it to try to prove his point that feelings should not be subject to the law.He said that the only person who can decide if I am upset is me. Offence is always taken not given. We are not responsible for the feelings of other people.

He has been mocked because his feelings as a white male do not count to the MSM who think that only minorities’ feelings should count. Many of them are totally missing the point that he is making. His point is that feelings are subjective and should not be subject to the law.  We should not be able to criminalise someone because we chose to take offence to what they said.

To give an example of how subjective being offended is; one person might be flattered if I called them “a skinny bitch”  with a smile on my face but another woman  might decide that her feelings have been hurt by my words.  Crimes are crimes no matter who they happen to. If I steal from Sue and Helen both crimes are theft.  How can it be a genuine crime if Sue is not offended by my words but Helen is? I have no control over how those women will react. If I steal I know what I am doing is a crime whereas if I say something, I have no idea if a person will take offence at what I have to say.

Read more »

Human Rights Commission goes to war with the media

It seems the response to Dame Susan Devoy’s endorsement of decisions to not mention “Christmas” so as to not offend those precious thin-skinned Muslim immigrants has hit a nerve. She has lambasted media bias.

Most of us already realise our mainstream media has a powerful influence on people. What some of us do not already realise is that our media is neither neutral nor objective.

Chinese New Zealanders, Muslim New Zealanders, Jewish New Zealanders, Pacific New Zealanders, Indian New Zealanders, African New Zealanders and of course Maori New Zealanders: regularly tell the Commission that the media too often misrepresents, sensationalises or fails to include their voices in news stories about them.

Often news stories about ethnic minorities have negative themes and present minorities as problems and not as people. This is not a new phenomenon and with the advent of social media, these prejudices are often amplified.

Dame Susan Devoy, Race Relations Commissioner, who recently spoke at the Ethnic Migrant Refugee Community Engagement Summit about this issue, says that while the media may not be neutral or objective, it does reflect the society we live in.

“There have been a number of examples in recent times of the media’s incorrect treatment and portrayal of ethnic communities in New Zealand.

“The “ban on Christmas’ coverage last year was particularly telling – taking The Commission’s defence of a Migrant Trusts right to use secular language and turning it into a story about how New Zealand’s way of life was at risk from migrants and newcomers.

“The article pushed the buttons of fear and intolerance and served an existing undertone of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric: and the immediate response from many New Zealanders was angry, abusive and offensive.”

The article definitely got people talking, but after a month or so the majority of editorials and commentators had realised what we had been saying for weeks: no one was banning Christmas; Kiwis can decide for themselves; New Zealand’s way of life was not in danger.

Read more »

Nowhere on the HRC website does it list the right to not be offended

human_rights_banner

human_rights_banner

Hurty feelings and being offended are not listed as a human right on the Human Rights Commission website. What it does list is our our right to freedom of expression. The people who made a complaint about our cartoon are trying to stomp on our human rights but I can find no right of theirs that we have tried to stomp on. If you look through the list our cartoon has not prevented the complainants from enjoying any of the below rights but their complaint about us is an attempt to deny us our human right to freedom of expression.

Why are the Human Rights Commission even looking into these complaints? None of the below rights have been affected in any way.

What are human rights?

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that every person in the world should have. There are two main types of human rights – civil and political rights, and social, cultural and economic rights.

Read more »