Latest news with #StephenFranks
Scoop
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
FIANZ Calls For ‘Hate Speech' Laws Again; Is Their Harmony Accord Commitment Real?
The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) once again is calling for 'hate speech' laws against their critics in the name of social cohesion. This undermines the spirit of the Harmony Accord, which is a promising document to foster mutual understanding through dialogue, says Stephen Franks, Chairperson of the Free Speech Union. 'The Accord expressly commits the parties to respecting freedom of speech. If FIANZ has immediately reneged, their commitment is suspect. Defining and seeking punishment for 'Islamophobia' has been the Trojan horse for resuscitating blasphemy laws in other free societies. Leading politicians in the UK are currently fighting against such an attempt. 'Censorship is poison to social cohesion. People charged or jailed for expressing fears about a religion will rationally resent the groups asking the Police to silence their fears. We're seeing the results right now in the UK, in the disorder fueled by long suppression of the truth about the rape grooming gangs, and the gags on questioning illegal immigration. 'Proposals to criminalise criticism of religion, even under the banner of combating 'hate', would grant religious beliefs legal privileges that conflict with liberal democratic values. New Zealanders must remain free to challenge and debate religious doctrines without the threat of prosecution. 'Censorship is counterproductive. It does nothing to change views. It often draws more attention to the very opinions it's trying to ban. Counter-speech is more constructive. It allows bad ideas to be challenged, not buried. The Government has already rightly rejected 'hate speech' laws after tens of thousands of Kiwis pushed back. 'We should not risk turning an Accord that shows tolerance and mutual respect into scheming to undermine core democratic freedoms. A forced silence is not social cohesion.'
Scoop
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Free Speech Union Warns Stalking And Harassment Bill Risks Abuse, Changes Make It Worse
The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill suffers from the common fault of slogan laws with good intentions, without realism about the risks of misuse. The announced expansion of what is considered a 'specified act' goes in the wrong direction, says Stephen Franks, Council Member of the Free Speech Union. 'We've already seen the broad and vague terminology in the Harmful Digital Communications Act being used to silence legitimate dissent many times. This Bill is likely to be similarly abused. 'Truth should be a defense for 'damaging, or undermining [a person's] reputation, opportunities, or relationships'. That would save the centuries-long principle that protects the public interest in learning home truths about powerful people and wrongdoers. It is not enough to say the Bill lets you argue that truth is for a proper purpose. We know that courts have not held that telling the truth is presumptively a proper purpose. 'The broad definition of 'specified acts' as inducing fear or distress, combined with the low threshold for establishing a 'pattern of behaviour', already leaves wide scope for misuse against legitimate surveillance, and dissent. Likewise, the inclusion of 'contacting or communicating with a person' is vague and has the potential to be weaponised. 'By prioritising the term 'fear or distress' without a clear objective override, the Bill raises similar issues to 'hate speech' legislation. The law does not recognise that some people ought to be ashamed ('distressed') by exposure of their own conduct. 'The Government's decision to increase the timeframe for establishing a 'pattern of behaviour' from contact twice over 12 to 24 months also widens the net, making it more likely that isolated or infrequent expressions of dissent could be criminalised. 'We submitted our concerns in February, urging the Justice Select Committee to narrow their definitions, to clarify 'specified acts', and to provide better defences that would let the courts protect free speech. We call on the Minister of Justice to protect Kiwis' speech rights as well as victims of stalking and harassment.'
Scoop
03-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
High Court Judge Urged To Consider Public Trust In McSkimming Case ‘Superinjunction' Decision
Press Release – Free Speech Union Even if a powerful individual is not charged or is found not guilty, the public should still have access to the facts in order to make their own informed judgments about his character. The High Court judge has reserved her decision on whether to maintain the 'superinjunction' in Jevon McSkimming's case, which currently disables the media and public from discussing the details. The Free Speech Union urges the Court to consider the damage to public trust caused by excessive secrecy, says Stephen Franks, Free Speech Union Council Member. 'The Court should uphold the speech rights of all New Zealanders by allowing the media, and therefore the public, to scrutinise matters of genuine public interest. The public should be free to discuss the conduct of their officials and form their own opinions on matters. 'The media play a crucial role in enabling Kiwis to seek and receive information. The High Court set a dangerous precedent by limiting this freedom. The public's ability to discuss cases should be prioritised in court decisions. 'Even if a powerful individual is not charged or is found not guilty, the public should still have access to the facts in order to make their own informed judgments about his character. 'We urge the judge to consider the full weight of the damage done to public trust in courts, lawyers, and judges when they act as if only they can be trusted, while the 'little people' are kept in the dark. 'Suppression is bad, whatever the outcome.'
Scoop
03-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
High Court Judge Urged To Consider Public Trust In McSkimming Case ‘Superinjunction' Decision
The High Court judge has reserved her decision on whether to maintain the 'superinjunction' in Jevon McSkimming's case, which currently disables the media and public from discussing the details. The Free Speech Union urges the Court to consider the damage to public trust caused by excessive secrecy, says Stephen Franks, Free Speech Union Council Member. 'The Court should uphold the speech rights of all New Zealanders by allowing the media, and therefore the public, to scrutinise matters of genuine public interest. The public should be free to discuss the conduct of their officials and form their own opinions on matters. 'The media play a crucial role in enabling Kiwis to seek and receive information. The High Court set a dangerous precedent by limiting this freedom. The public's ability to discuss cases should be prioritised in court decisions. 'Even if a powerful individual is not charged or is found not guilty, the public should still have access to the facts in order to make their own informed judgments about his character. 'We urge the judge to consider the full weight of the damage done to public trust in courts, lawyers, and judges when they act as if only they can be trusted, while the 'little people' are kept in the dark. 'Suppression is bad, whatever the outcome.'
Scoop
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Court-Backed Gag Order In McSkimming Case Deepens Concerns For Public Discourse And Institutional Trust
Press Release – Free Speech Union This was an outrageous decision by the High Court. An individuals wish for secrecy must not come at the cost of public confidence in an open and transparent justice system. News that the Former Deputy Police Commissioner obtained a 'super injunction' (now partially lifted) restricting press from reporting on allegedly inappropriate use of his work computer is of great concern for public discourse and institutional trust says Stephen Franks,Free Speech Union Council Member. 'It's emerged that on Friday, McSkimming received a rare 'super injunction' that prohibited media not only from reporting on the allegedly objectionable material found on his work computer, but also the fact he'd sought the injunction. 'This was an outrageous decision by the High Court. An individual's wish for secrecy must not come at the cost of public confidence in an open and transparent justice system. 'Free speech ensures that the media can report on cases like McSkimming's, and that the public can scrutinise the actions of officials and decide for themselves whether that conduct is unacceptable or not. Without being free to discuss these matters of public interest, the media, public, and watchdogs lose the ability to assess if and how systems within the Police force failed and if reforms are needed. 'Just last week, we welcomed an IPCA report that found the Police had lied about the details of an unlawful arrest of a protester. And now, we have the High Court issuing a gag order to restrict reporting on a different case related to Police conduct. 'A service we can't trust, coupled with gag orders by the High Court, is a disaster-in-waiting. Transparency and the ability to discuss the conduct of our officials is essential if New Zealand is to trust its key institutions. 'The High Court should be defending Kiwis' rights to seek, receive and impart information, not limiting it, especially when it's related to how Police are using public time and resources.'
