NZ Jewish Council Clarifies Position: Advocating For Safety And Accountability, Not Censorship
Recent commentary has inaccurately portrayed the NZJC's joint statement with the Holocaust Centre of New Zealand, which called for the development of a national strategy to address antisemitism, as a call for 'tougher censorship laws.' This is not the case.
Our call was, and remains, for a coordinated, principled, and effective government response to antisemitism, following recent actions taken by the Australian Government.
To be clear:
We have not called for restrictions on free speech.
We have not asked for the silencing of criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinian rights.
We are not seeking to criminalise opinions or suppress debate.
We have been consistent in our position with regards to hate speech laws, even when that hate was directed at us.
What we are calling for is accountability when rhetoric becomes harassment, exclusion and incitement, and when hostile environments silence and endanger others, particularly in universities, where young Jewish New Zealanders are reporting increased intimidation, marginalisation, and the inability to safely express their identity and opinions.
Our position is grounded in democratic values. We believe in open discourse, but we also believe in ensuring that publicly funded institutions do not enable or ignore discrimination, whether against Jews or any other minority group.
It is not 'censorship' to expect that our public institutions uphold basic standards of safety, respect, and inclusion. It is responsible governance.
We welcome engagement on this issue. We believe that civil society, including groups like the Free Speech Union, can play a constructive role in helping New Zealand navigate the balance between freedom of expression and freedom from hate. But it is essential that public commentary accurately reflects the positions of those it critiques.
We invite all New Zealanders, regardless of background or beliefs, to stand against antisemitism and support a national conversation that strengthens our democracy and upholds the dignity and physical safety of all.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Architects Board Must Prioritise Safe Buildings Over Mandated Ideologies
Architects' registrations and livelihoods should not be on the line over differing worldviews. The Free Speech Union recommends that the New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB) focus on competence and physical safety, not subjective ideologies, as part of the organisation's consultation on possible registration requirements, says Stephanie Martin, spokesperson for the Free Speech Union. 'The NZRAB is proposing to assess architects on whether their work reflects a particular ideological viewpoint rather than simply whether they are professionally competent. The NZRAB invited us to be a key stakeholder in their consultation process on proposed expansions to the performance criteria required for architects' professional registration. 'We've urged NZRAB to consider matters that affect the safety of buildings and the public, leaving architects free to hold their own opinions regarding subjective topics such as the degree of integration of indigenous knowledge or Māori worldviews into the design process. 'Architects should absolutely have the right to incorporate te ao Māori, and to upskill in this area if they have a particular interest or a related project. Likewise, if they have a project that relates to a different culture, religion, or tradition, it would be best practice to understand more about the context in which they're working. But mandated opinions on such topics? That would be a dangerous overreach. 'When registration hinges not on technical skills but on social, cultural or ideological attitudes, compulsory regulation becomes a tool for policing speech, mandating approaches, and limiting discussion, whether intentionally or not. That is inappropriate in a liberal democracy and inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Regulatory bodies have a responsibility to protect the public. This does not include 'protection' from ideas they might disagree with. 'Ideological requirements should not determine whether an individual can become an architect, nor should current architects be limited in the cultural opinions or approaches they are allowed to hold or express. NZRAB should focus on physical safety and allow architects to explore and express different worldviews freely.'
1News
13 hours ago
- 1News
Change coming to rules for residential sheds, garages
Homeowners will soon be able to build small structures like garden sheds, sleepouts and garages closer to their property boundaries without requiring building consent following regulatory changes announced by the Government today. Cabinet agreed to remove the minimum distance required between single-storey buildings under 10sqm and a property boundary or other residential building, and reduce it to one metre for buildings between 10 and 30 square metres. Previously, these structures needed to be set back from boundaries by at least their own height unless a building consent was obtained. The changes, which would be made by amending Schedule 1 of the Building Act, were expected to take effect later this year. All building work must still comply with the Building Code and local district plans. ADVERTISEMENT Regulation Minister David Seymour said shrinking section sizes and the cost of living meant forcing people to put sheds in the middle of their lawn or pay for consent to store tools "doesn't make sense". "There is no justification for such generous setback distances on private property," he said. "Today's housing market means space is tight and building costs are high. These types of property developments are practical and affordable improvements. We want people to be able to utilise them without hassle." Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk said the Government did not believe Kiwis should be "bogged down in bureaucracy" when making use of their backyard. "That's a real win for anyone short on space, giving them more freedom to add a bike shed, protect their tools, cover a vehicle, or even create a small sleepout for guests – all without extra paperwork." Seymour said the regulation change had come about due to the Ministry of Regulation's red tape tipline, an online resource where the public could make submissions on regulations that affect them. Larger granny flats able to be built without consent ADVERTISEMENT A granny flat (file image). (Source: The Government also announced earlier this year it would ease rules around granny flats and increase the maximum size that could be built without consent to 70 square metres. An increase to 60 square metres was a National-NZ First coalition agreement, but Housing Minister Chris Bishop said "huge support" meant the Government would go even further. "It's currently far too hard to build the homes New Zealanders need, with even the simplest dwellings tangling up homeowners and builders in red tape." Under the proposal, granny flats could be built without consent if they had a simple design, met the Building Code, were built by authorised builders, and if the council was notified before and after construction. The amendment bill passed its first reading and was currently at the select committee stage, with the report due back next month.
The Spinoff
17 hours ago
- The Spinoff
NZOA has saved reality TV and soaps – what about all the shows left to die?
NZ on Air is confronting a very uncomfortable question: what to save, and what to leave behind. Funding announcements from NZ on Air are not typically newsworthy in and of themselves. The agency functions as a local version of the BBC, but instead of existing as a non-commercial umbrella brand, it funds a variety of media which runs across a wide range of largely commercial mediums and platforms. Funded work often consists of a mix of returning shows and new projects, which are either predictable (another season of Q+A, or a fresh David Lomas project) or largely unknown (another murder in rural New Zealand, cast tbc). The most recent round was strikingly different, making news in a way which reveals challenges to the agency's model, and shows just how bad the choices are for NZ on Air now. Three very familiar shows collectively received more than $5m in funding. They are Shortland Street, Celebrity Treasure Island and The Traitors NZ. All are broad in their appeal and comparatively popular. Yet none would have been considered good candidates for funding until very recently. That's because NZ on Air was set up to address a market failure. Due to our small population, some forms of 'programming reflecting New Zealand identity and culture' (according to its legislation) are not commercially viable. The legislation makes specific reference to 'drama and documentary', with everything else somewhat in the eye of the beholder. For decades that meant scripted shows (such as comedy and drama) were NZ on Air's core business, while most other formats (from current affairs to breakfast TV) were commercially funded, due to TV networks being able to sell enough ads to make them on their own terms. That didn't mean it lacked value, just that it didn't need the support. News is the canonical example of a commercially funded genre – TVNZ's 6pm bulletin remains among the highest-rated shows on television, despite costing a bomb to make. Reality TV wasn't even a genre when NZ on Air was founded, and the agency has tended to be fairly circumspect in its funding of it over the years, only getting involved when, as with Match Fit, or Popstars, it fulfilled another worthy goal. Shortland Street, our only true soap, was briefly funded as a kind of TV startup, but cranked along under its own steam for decades afterwards. This was helpful because reality TV and soaps are considered less intellectually nutritious by the kind of people who care about the culture we fund. The end of that era This has not been an uncontested idea. Critics, including those at The Spinoff, and the makers of reality TV have long felt that NZ on Air was too prescriptive in its definition of 'reflecting New Zealand identity and culture'. They believe that reality TV and soaps are popular, show a diverse range of New Zealanders and bring voices, vernacular and perspectives to our screens, just as scripted comedy and drama do. This past week, they won the argument. Shortland Street has returned for a second funded season, after last year accessing two different strands of public funding to stay on air. More striking was the return of The Traitors NZ and Celebrity Treasure Island, two shows which had previously been commercially funded. Celebrity Treasure Island is a revival of an '00s-era format, and has drawn praise for its use of Te Reo Māori and addressing 'complex issues like ageism, sexism and queer politics, all on primetime mainstream television', according to my colleague Tara Ward. The Traitors NZ is a hit local version of a smash international format, with a diverse cast and a strong strain of New Zealand-specific humour. In addition to the cultural arguments, there's also a broader systems-level case for their funding. The shows have consistently rated strongly, particularly with the kind of middle-aged audiences which have abandoned linear television over the past decade. The thinking goes that by keeping these tentpole shows on our screens, you also help keep our networks and production companies viable. The path not taken Despite the solid arguments in favour, there remains a case against, too. To contemplate it, you only need to cast your mind back to a little over a year ago. It was a bonfire of the journalists. We lost longform current affairs stalwart Sunday, the venerable consumer rights show Fair Go, the magazine-style 7pm staple The Project and, most wrenchingly, the whole Newshub operation, all in the space of a few harrowing months. The death of those shows was attributed to the awful financial equation facing TV networks. That despite all rating very strongly, at least by comparison to the rest of the schedule, none could justify the investment required to keep them running. It was a shocking, visceral event, one which made New Zealand a cautionary tale across the Tasman – the country you need to look hard at to figure out how to avoid its fate. Now, a year on, and NZ on Air has been persuaded by the arguments of TVNZ and Three, that these reality TV and soap formats are too important to be allowed to die. To be clear, none of Shortland Street, Celebrity Treasure Island or The Traitors NZ is fully funded. The budgets aren't public, but production industry sources suggest the agency's investment would cover no more than 50% of the associated costs, and perhaps considerably less. Still, the risk of moral hazard is clear. The networks and production companies have established that no show is beyond help, and as audiences decline, there is a manifest case for continually topping up the public funding component of budgets. The implication is that paradoxically, as they get less popular and ad revenue declines, they should receive more help. None of which is to say these decisions are wrong in isolation. But looking at the slate of what we publicly fund now, we seem a long way from home. Pulpy true crime documentaries, reality TV shows with large chunks devoted to selling McDonalds, regularly re-named shows built around the interests of a single comedian. Still, what else can we do? Linear TV audience decline is a global phenomenon, and no public or private broadcaster has successfully ported their audiences across to digital at the same scale as they once had, let alone been able to defend the same advertising revenues. NZ on Air faces bad choices everywhere as it seeks to fulfil its mission and defend its model. It may not have even been given the chance to save the news. But as we slip gently into a new era, where everything which can be argued can be funded, it's important to remember the shows we didn't save too. And ask whether the foundational mission of NZ on Air is better served by what we kept, or what we threw away.
