Dangerous Waters

Offence in the Eye of the Claimant

Politics, they say, makes strange bedfellows.  And so it has proven to be once again.  We find ourselves in the unusual situation of agreeing with the NZ Humanist Society.  The issue is the suppression of  free speech in a recently passed law designed to punish "cyber-bullying".

According to the NZ Herald,

The Act stated digital communications "should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability."  Mr Honeychurch (of the Humanist Society) said the law would effectively impose some of the world's strictest penalties - including fines of up to $50,000 - on people found guilty of blaspheming, or insulting religion.

It appears that New Zealand is fast following the UK and, if so, it will inevitably mean the persecution of religious believers.  Once again, the offence is in the eye of the hearer or reader.  If they choose to "feel offended" or "emotionally distressed" the speaker is guilty. 

 The Humanist Society said some human rights organisations took a dim view of the new law for allowing people to bring proceedings if they alleged a digital communication denigrated their religion or caused them to "suffer serious emotional distress".

There is a world of difference between one's religion being denigrated, criticised, abused, spat at--on the one hand--and suffering emotional distress as a result, on the other.
  Imagine the potential slew of lawsuits which could result from people mocking or criticising the Pope and therefore denigrating the Roman Catholic faith.  Or consider the slew of lawsuits which could result from the blasphemous use of the Name of Christ or God the Father in various on-line public fora.

Or--far more likely and closer to the point--imagine the slew of lawsuits that will inevitably result from Christians criticising homosexual "marriage" or Islamic doctrines, or humanist beliefs, for that matter.  Homosexuals will claim they have been denigrated.  Islamic believers will assert Allah has been blasphemed, resulting in personal denigration and deep offence, and so on.

The Communications Minister, Amy Adams denies that this will be the case.  During a "Live Chat" published by a daily electronic newmedia, she claimed:

The right to free speech has never been absolute but it is important that we carefully balance the significant harm that can be done by cyber bullying with the protection of free speech. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure this balance has landed in the right place and the select committee looked carefully at that issue and we have worked with stakeholders to make sure the threshold for intervention is appropriately high.

She also noted that the state would not be monitoring communications.  The NZ Police will not be involved.  Individuals who believe they have suffered damage would need to make a complaint to an Approved Agency. 

The Bill requires that in the first instance the victim goes to the approved agency who can reject any claims that don’t meet the threshold for intervention and only if the claims are legitimate will that agency, or the court, be prepared to take any further steps.

We will see.  Let's hope Amy Adams is right and not just naive.  Unfortunately there is a long train of unexpected deleterious outcomes from laws promulgated along with the assurance of them being "well-balanced".   One suspects that claims will be more likely regarded as legitimate the more complainants allege deep and abiding offence.  And that it an invitation to a histrionic parading of alleged hurt and deep grief, all for thinly disguised ideological reasons and for reasons of partisan propaganda. Oppression of opponents will be the standard menu fare, who, in terms of this move, could be sent to prison.