Summarised by Centrist
Retired District Court judge David Harvey says New Zealand’s complaints culture is becoming a soft form of censorship, where the process itself can punish people for lawful disagreement.
Writing in the NZ Herald, Harvey argues that New Zealand has built “an elaborate architecture of grievance” through tribunals, authorities, councils and professional regulators.
What began as systems for addressing “genuine injustice”, he says, has evolved into one that “rewards escalation, punishes disagreement and corrodes the foundations of a free society”.
Harvey’s central concern is that offence is increasingly being treated as harm.
He says the Waitangi Tribunal, Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), NZ Media Council, Broadcasting Standards Authority and professional regulators show how complaints systems can drift beyond their original purpose.
Harvey says an ASA complainant objected to Matthew Horncastle’s political billboard, even though it was “a private citizen stating a political opinion on a structure he owns”.
The ASA ultimately accepted it had no jurisdiction. But Harvey says “the damage was done”, because Horncastle had already received a formal letter requiring him to justify his political views.
“The process itself becomes punishment,” Harvey writes, calling it “a soft form of censorship”.
Editors may avoid material that may trigger organised complaints. Broadcasters avoid cultural commentary. Lawyers avoid robust advocacy. Doctors, nurses and real estate agents censor lawful private opinions.
In Harvey’s view, the issue is whether accountability mechanisms should be allowed to police ideology, offence and political disagreement.
“The result is a society where disagreement is treated as harm, and complaint is treated as remedy,” he writes.
Harvey says statutory bodies should not adjudicate ideological offence, voluntary bodies should reject complaints about political speech, and professional regulators should focus on core competence rather than lawful private views.
“Being offended is not harm and disagreement is not injustice,” he writes.
Read more over at The NZ Herald (premium)
