Four fires, but no 'hate': these terms are selectively applied

Four fires, but no 'hate': these terms are selectively applied

Early on Saturday morning, a man tried to set seven churches in Masterton, my local community, alight. Four of these fires caused varying degrees of damage. The man who set the fires has not yet been caught. 

Media coverage of the issue has had a 'concerned tone', but there's been a conspicuous absence of a certain term. You might know the one I mean: 'hate'. 

As far as we have seen, no politicians have commented on the issue, except Mike Butterick, the local MP. 

Can you imagine what the response would be if seven mosques in a fairly small community had been attacked or if local marae were set alight?

When a pride centre was set alight in Tauranga in 2022, the media covered the issue claiming it was 'an act of terror'.

Media have called these seven fires 'suspicious' and a 'spat of church arson attacks', even though, unlike the Tauranga pride centre fire, a man has posted on Facebook claiming to have lit the seven fires. 

The double standard is palpable, and is exactly why terms like 'hate crimes' are not only worthless, but dangerous.

They create a big stick to beat those with opinions that are unpopular at the time, but do nothing to actually address the problem of criminal activity motivated by bigotry or prejudice. 

This incident strikes me personally. These are churches I know well. I have even spoken in some of them before. But my personal connection to these attacks isn't what makes them serious.

There are always individuals who are connected to instances of crime. The victims of crime always have personal stories. And these individuals and these stories matter. But what should concern the police (and media), is the crime. I may feel personally concerned about these attacks, but that shouldn’t determine how much attention they receive, or whether they’re framed as ‘hate crimes’ or not.

These are subjective terms, and once the police and media start picking and choosing which community deserves more sympathy or attention when they are victims of crime, the rule of law and each of our equality before it is a farce. 

This is why we are calling on all Kiwis to submit to the Law Commission in their current consultation on 'hate crime' laws. Paul Goldsmith needs to hear your voice: 'hate crime' laws are unavoidably subjective, these terms are selectively applied, and inevitably they will do more harm than good.

<<Submit now against proposed 'hate crime' law>>

I met with the President of the Law Commission two weeks ago and was heartened by the fact she also appreciates many of the unavoidable weaknesses of trying to make 'hate' illegal.

She told us she is particularly interested in your opinion on whether 'hate crime' is indeed a problem in New Zealand, and if you think it is, whether it can be addressed by new laws, and how. Can I ask you to please submit now to this consultation - and also, if you would like, to reply to this email with your thoughts on these questions?

The Free Speech Union is your voice on matters that relate to the crucial right to think and speak freely. We will take your comments on these questions, and also include them in the major submission we are drafting on this issue. We would love to include your perspective.

The attacks in Masterton are just the most recent example of a truth we each know: It is a bad idea to create new powers for the government to enforce subjective laws that will be applied selectively.

Speak up and push back with us now.

Jonathan Ayling Chief Executive Free Speech Union www.fsu.nz