Justice Minister Andrew Little declared back in March that a review of New Zealand’s hate speech law was in its final stages. It is only the COVID-19 outbreak which has prevented it from being enacted.
In order to usher in any new religious blasphemy legislation the old must first be set aside. This was done on 11 March 2019 with the repeal of section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961, which parliament voted for unanimously. This means that all National MPs voted for it and one can only wonder how they could have been so stupid.
The Nats surely are to Labour as an ‘enabler’ is to a fattie, causing her to go on gorging herself. In Labour’s case, with ‘progressive’ socialism.
The idea that is always peddled by progressives when sweeping away the old order is that it ‘no longer reflects the kind of society we live in,’ and everyone generally says, ‘fair enough,’ and acquiesces – unaware of the new and untold horrors which are about to unfold. You would think that the National Party would learn. You would think that we all would learn.
Section 123 of the Crimes Act was an entirely harmless relic of the past. Its successor which, make no mistake about it, will be introduced and subsequently passed, represents the greatest threat to liberty this country has seen since the last great act to eradicate liberty – the Labour lockdown.
First, some background. The offence of blasphemy in its developed form was not intended to defend God. A 1917 English legal case established the principle of decorum injuriae diis curae – that God can look after himself. This is indeed true. The law was rather intended for the protection of society against ‘provocative rhetoric’ and other ills.
The law relating to blasphemy was received into New Zealand in 1840 along with all other English common law offences. It was narrowly interpreted at that time to apply only to the protection of the Church of England – it being the national church established in England by law. In hearing the Gathercole case in 1838, Lord Alderson had declared that:
‘A person may, without being liable to prosecution for it, attack Judaism, or Mahomedanism, or even any sect of the Christian religion (save the established religion of the country); and the only reason why the latter is in a different situation from the others is, because … [it is] a part of the constitution of the country.’
As was the case in Australia, the Church of England was never established in New Zealand on a constitutional basis and so the blasphemy law never had particular relevance. Blasphemous libel was, however, written into the New Zealand Criminal Code Act 1893, the Crimes Act 1908 which replaced it, and in turn the Crimes Act 1961 – which removed the possibility of prosecution in New Zealand under any UK Act of Parliament or for any UK common law offence.
It has never been made clear in New Zealand to which religion or religious denomination the law of blasphemous libel might have applied. The only prosecution to be brought in our history was a 1922 case against The Maoriland Worker for publishing two pieces by World War I poet Siegfried Sassoon, which included the following:
O Jesus, send me a wound to-day,And I’ll believe in Your bread and wine,And get my bloody old sins washed white!
The prosecution was unsuccessful, the jury only remarking: ‘That similar publications of such literature be discouraged.’
Since that time we have had Monty Python’s The Life of Brian (1979). Then subsequently Sam Taylor-Wood’s 1996 photographic reconstruction of Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper featuring Christ as a topless woman, and Tania Kovats’ 1998 Virgin in a Condom, both of which were displayed ‘in the public interest’ by the ‘intellectuals’ at Te Papa museum. In 2006 the Crown decided not to pursue charges against CanWest for airing an episode of the South Park cartoon featuring a menstruating Virgin Mary statue.
So while it isn’t clear what threat to our society the old law of blasphemous libel could have posed, or what restrictions it might have sought to place upon us, what is clear is the direction of travel of the progressive left’s ‘creatives’ with their relentless assaults – many of them simply gratuitous, and few of them socially edifying – upon Christianity.
It’s also worth commenting on the rolling-back of censorship laws which began in 1960 with the London publication of D.H. Lawrence’s 1928 novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Although greatly feted, Lawrence is, when objectively assessed, at best a B-grade novelist and Lady Chatterley isn’t even his best book. Rather than being shocked by it, one aristocratic contemporary remarked, understated: “It isn’t the sort of thing one could leave with one’s game keeper.”
What we gained from Lady Chatterley is of questionable merit, but what came with it was, of course, a tidal wave of permissiveness, obscenity and pornography with which we remain swamped to this day. The repeal of the censorship laws brought about the sexualisation of everything. Perhaps Mary Whitehouse in the UK and Patricia Bartlett in New Zealand had a point in campaigning against the relentless social liberalism of the 1970s and 80s. Both women were Christian, both the objects of ridicule and both, of course, failed in their task to uphold the traditional values of our society. They seemed to have understood that the shedding of values comes at a cost.
Forty-five years later the price was paid as a new restrictive form of puritanism came upon us – this time entirely political. Hate speech law was introduced into the UK by the Labour government of Anthony Blair, taking the form of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Part 3A of the Act states:
‘A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.’
This was accompanied by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which makes it an offence in England and Wales to incite hatred on the ground of sexual orientation.
Scotland – gifted devolved powers by Anthony Blair with the express aim of destroying the Union, and ruled since 2007 by the hard-left Scottish National Party – hasn’t let COVID-19 stop it. The Scots have beaten Andrew Little, by introducing to the Scottish Assembly last week, their own ‘modernising’ blasphemy law. This despite the fact that it is 178 years since blasphemy charges were last brought in Scotland – against Edinburgh bookseller Thomas Paterson, for “exhibiting placards of a profane nature,” in his shop window in 1842.
What, then, is the imminent danger? In any well-governed realm, according to The Spectator, the free and honest expression of opinion would be encouraged. But according to Scottish Justice Minister Humza Yousaf:
“[The] stirring up of hatred can contribute to a social atmosphere in which discrimination is accepted as normal. By creating robust laws for the justice system, parliament will send a strong message to victims, perpetrators, communities and to wider society that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated seriously and will not be tolerated.”
This is the same Humza Yousaf who, in the interests of multiculturalism, introduced jocularity to his parliamentary swearing-in ceremony by wearing a kilt, and then proceeded to take his oath in Urdu.
Scotland’s narrow blasphemy law was replaced with a ‘modern’ one of much wider remit, covering discrimination against not only religion but also age, disability, race and sexual orientation. Scotland still holds onto a notion of the ‘sacred’ – but that the new sacred is the polar opposite of what it once was. The new orthodoxies? You can probably guess. Yousaf outlines some of the positions which are now not permitted in Scotland:
- Stating that gender is a biological genetic reality and not a ‘social construct’.
- Taking issue with aspects of Islam relating to the life of the prophet of Islam.
- Expressing the view that abortion is immoral because it involves the taking of human life.
- Suggesting that the best model of parenthood is the heterosexual married couple.
- Pointing out that a man accused of predatory sexual behaviour isn’t guilty simply because women say so.
- Refusing to accept that all alleged victims of abuse must be believed, regardless of evidence.
Interestingly, none of these views comprising the ‘new orthodoxy’ actually require establishment in law because the social penalties for them are already so severe. Anyone expressing contrary opinions in Scotland, or indeed New Zealand, will find it hard to work in government agencies, academia or even private companies which are policed by HR departments. No-platforming, ostracism in the Legacy media, Twitter lynching and petitioning for dismissal are all now commonplace.
Scotland’s new law was enacted on the basis that it reflects their ’new’ society. It needs to be understood that the new one is actually much less free and much less liberal than the one being replaced, with a much wider range of speech being banned.
The Hate Crimes and Public Order (Scotland) Act not only introduces a new criminal code but also creates ‘enhanced penalties’ for existing crimes which are ‘aggravated by prejudice’. Lord Bracadale, who conducted an independent review of the legislation, gives examples of how this might work:
- A person who yells abuse at a neighbour would face a stiffer penalty for referring to the neighbour’s homosexual orientation than if sexual orientation wasn’t raised, or if the neighbour were heterosexual.
- A man who shouts at a disabled person in a wheelchair, ‘get out of my way you cripple,’ before throwing the person from the chair, would face a harsher penalty for referencing the person’s disability than he would have got had he not mentioned it.
The absurdity of this is that both scenarios are already open to be prosecuted as offences – the first as a potential breach of the peace, and the second as an assault. Must we really go beyond this to arbitrate moral judgements? Why is it objectively worse to hurl abuse at a person who is homosexual than to do so because the person is short or ugly or blonde? Why is it worse to tip a man from his wheelchair because he is disabled than to do so because he is viewed as a nuisance?
Bracadale explains that the law’s purpose is to ensure that crimes aggravated by prejudice against ‘protected identity groups’ are “treated differently from ordinary crimes.” This moves us seamlessly on from the ‘hate crimes’ listed in part one of the Act to the prohibitions on ’stirring up hatred’ in part two. This outlaws “displaying, publishing or distributing’ anything that ’stirs up hatred”, as well as possessing “inflammatory material” or even, performing a “hateful” play.
There is no need to prove ‘intent’, only that by a person’s actions hatred would “likely be stirred up”. The law provides no specifics on this, leaving the ’stirring up of hatred’ to be judged entirely subjectively by a victim group or by some other interested third party. If any self-identifying minority finds something to be “abusive, threatening or insulting” then, under the law, it is.
A minor carve-out is made for “freedom of religion” which, as the National Review points out, is ironic in legislation which purports to both repeal the law of blasphemy, and to be liberalising. As the legislation prioritises “transgender identity” (which operates by means of self-declaration) and “intersex conditions” (which most people would not even be aware of), there is, of course, no protection offered to women.
The last execution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1691, carried out with the vigorous support of the Church of Scotland. Under the new legislation the penalty for “stirring up hatred” is up to seven years’ imprisonment – and of course a lynching in the marketplace of public opinion. As it did with the old law, a somewhat reformed and more visibly ‘woke’ Church of Scotland also supports the new one. The government’s actions are justified by a 2015 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey which found that 69 percent of Scots felt that “Scotland should do everything it can to get rid of all kinds of prejudice”.
Is it any wonder then that our own Prime Minister talks endlessly about ‘kindness’? Is this the type of ‘kindness’ which Mr Little’s hate speech law will make manifest?
There are definite parallels between Scotland and New Zealand. They have similarly-sized populations and share a common ancestry. Both have socialist-voting urban populations and conservative rural minorities. Both have hard-left governments fronted by ideological, megalomaniac women hellbent on red-green social engineering. Both have traded in the ‘old order’ values of individual freedom and personal responsibility, and are now hooked on welfarism and handouts which are fronted by ‘feelz’. Both are ready for next-level tyranny where group-think is the only form of thinking permitted, and all opinions are policed.
The New Moral Orthodoxy is precisely what John Stuart Mill warned against in his 1859 book On Liberty. At that time the Church of Scotland’s views were, to some extent, legally enforceable. But they were narrow (in relation to the broader national life), codified, and static in scope. One understood what they were, and where the boundaries of the old ‘decency’ lay.
Today we worship at the Temple of Multiculturalism, Diversity and ‘Inclusion’ – which is a broad and ever-growing religious cult. One never knows what voguish beliefs will be established next, although – peering out over the parapet of Fortress Conservative towards the massed throngs of the progressive left – we see the enforced acceptance of paedophilia between ‘consenting’ individuals as a distinct and evolving short-term possibility.
Of one thing I can assure you: The enforcers of this New Religion are much more menacing, and even less humorous, than any nineteenth century Presbyterian minister.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.
