> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Transcript: Golriz Ghahraman & Stephen Franks on free speech - URL: https://goodoil.news/whaleoil-transcript-golriz-ghahraman-stephen-franks-on-free-speech/ - Published: 2019-04-07T20:00:24.000Z - Updated: 2019-07-26T23:23:45.000Z - Author: Cam Slater - Tags: Blog, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2024-07-17 04:14 **\*\*Editor’s note:** This transcript is of the **edited version** of the full interview. In the full interview (which we do not have access to) Stephen pointed out that Tarrant described himself as a Greenie and an eco-fascist. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/31/f4/31f4e20a-0315-499e-83ff-139e8eab53bf/content/images/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9640436e9787279b4f7f6d3b9af07ec61e060c6dbf9878b44170c2d3efcee260.jpg) ***Transcriber’s note on media bias: it is worth watching the video to capture the frequency of Golriz using eye contact to appeal to Newshub Nation interviewer Emma Jolliff who obliges by intervening three times to redirect or close down.*** **Newshub Nation** The government is reviewing our hate speech laws in the wake of the Christchurch attacks. Justice minister Andrew Little says the current legislation is very narrow, only applying to inciting racial disharmony, it doesn’t cover other areas like religion, gender or sexual orientation. Lawyers Golriz Ghahraman and Stephen Franks join me now to discuss the issues. Thank you both for joining us. First question for you Golriz, how do you define hate speech, in fact? **Golriz** Yeah, so one of the problems, and I think the minister’s recognized this, is that we don’t have a very workable um sort of, aha, effective definition of hate speech as it would apply to the modern world. And most countries, you know, modern democracies in Europe, Canada has really effective definitions, and the starting point is we actually need a definition. Um, we will need to set the bar very high, because we want to protect free speech um and and it can’t be about, you know, whether you’ve offended someone, it needs to be about actual harm., which it is in other jurisdictions **Newshub Nation** How do you determine that? When actually these things are often in the eye of the beholder. **Golriz** Yeah, so the definition of hate speech is a little bit like definitions of other limitations to free speech that already apply in our law to protect individuals. So, defamation exists, for example, and it’s about harm. So, you can’t lie about a person to damage their reputation, make then unsafe, make them unemployable, for example. Those are very real harms that can come from speech and we have legislated against that for individuals. What we are saying is the same type of thing should apply to groups. In France they actually define hate speech very similarly to defamation as they do in other parts of Europe, so it’s about whether a third-party um would be moved, and this is the standard in New Zealand in terms of our jurisprudence, whether a third party would find the speech, um, to be such that they would become hostile toward that group. It’s not about how the group feels. **Newshub Nation** Okay, okay. So, Stephen? **Stephen** Well, no, it’s an objective view of how they would feel **Golriz** No, it’s an objective view of harm. **Stephen** It’s putting yourself into their shoes. But the essence of what’s missing is that **truth is no defence**. In hate speech in defamation, truth is an absolute defence. And that’s because of the view that ah we all ought to be able to challenge and be offensive and call out beliefs and views that are are bad. I mean there’s there’s absolutely no doubt that for many Catholics exposing priests pederasty has been offensive. Under all the tests of hate speech, it’s hate speech because it makes them feel bad, and ought to make them feel bad. **Golriz** Well I disagree because it **Stephen** Well it has been **Golriz** pointing out truthful things about individuals within that group wouldn’t come under hate speech. If you say all Catholics. **Stephen** No, it’s a group **Golriz** If you say all paedophiles **Stephen** No you’re **Golriz** that would start to come under the definition. **Stephen** No. You’re inventing the law there. **What is actually says is if it makes the group offended.** In Australia, in Britain there’s there’s 3,000 police investigations last year in Britain of things like a woman on Twitter who refused to call a transgender man a woman and called him a man. She was arrested, breastfeeding woman, kept in prison overnight, lost her computer hasn’t got it back. The police are obliged under these laws because someone is offended to go and and tackle them. **Golriz** But the point is this is a conversation we need to be having because our hate speech laws aren’t actually fit for purpose right now. We know **Stephen** But that’s just jargon. What do you mean, not fit? tell me give me an example of something that should be banned that isn’t Would you would you ban **Golriz** Okay. No, no and we should **Newshub Nation** ***\[Transcriber’s note: Stephen’s important question for Golriz is redirected back to him by NN which avoids Golriz answering.\]***Can you give us an example actually? Is there any form of expression you would consider hate speech or unacceptable? **Stephen** I think I think the ah the NZ the Human Rights Act has a very good definition. The Section 61 **Golriz** But it doesn’t cover all groups. **Stephen** Well it doesn’t it doesn’t **Golriz** Do you think that race should be in it? **Stephen** it doesn’t cover religion, for example, because because religion is something that should be argued about. **Golriz** We are not talking about religion. **Stephen** Yes, you are. **Golriz** Religious groups. **Stephen** No. **Golriz** So, the people that ascribe to that religious group. You can always criticise a religion? **Stephen** No you can’t. **Golriz** you just can’t say **Stephen** You can’t. If it makes them feel bad, you can’t. Go and read the law. **Golriz** Well I have **Stephen** Go and read what’s happened in Australia, read what’s happened in the UK **Golriz** No, I have. It’s about? it’s about inciting hostility in a third party, that’s our law. **Stephen** Well it’s automatically hostile when you say this is a this is a ghastly religion. **Golriz** In a third party, not in the group. **Newshub Nation** Stephen, do you think there is any safe way of legislating against hate speech? **Stephen** Well we can see that there isn’t from what’s happened. We can see what’s happened in Australia **Golriz** Well let’s look at an example that we can have **Stephen** Let’s look at an example. In the Bible, the Bible says stone adulterers the Bible says kill gays should we? **Golriz** No, let’s look at the terror attacks **Stephen** Let me finish, let me finish **Golriz** let’s look at the terror attack because that’s actually the context we are operating. **Newshub Nation** That’s one faith we are talking about. **Golriz** Yeah. **Stephen** Yeah but that’s an incitement. So is the Koran which says slaughter infidels slaughter apostates, um deal in vicious ways which in fact have been effective. A quarter of the world is operating **Golriz** That’s why the rainbow community should be protected **Stephen** > A quarter of the world is operating under essentially some version of these hateful rules that are in in books that are sacred. I don’t think they should be banned. I think with the the the response to stuff you consider foul is more speech and persuasion. Not banning it. **Golriz** ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/31/f4/31f4e20a-0315-499e-83ff-139e8eab53bf/content/images/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/screen-shot-2019-03-12-at-1.21.10-pm-1.png) Okay. **Well that’s coming from a very privileged place** so let’s actually look at what’s happening in NZ right now. We’ve had an outpouring of absolute love and unity across the country. New Zealanders have told us they don’t want to live in a divisive hateful world. We know Facebook and Twitter are making billions off of us, and they don’t regulate hate speech. We also know that a man ah **Stephen** You’re absolutely making that up. **Golriz** No. **Stephen** Have you seen how much they spend on trying to get rid of hate speech? **Newshub Nation** ***\[Transcriber’s note: Interrupts to avoid Golriz answering Stephen’s question for the second time.\]*** So, an example of a man um standing outside a Manawatu mosque wearing a swastika tee-shirt, so effectively an anti-Muslim sentiment just days after the attack that killed 50 people, is that okay? How does that get dealt with? **Stephen** Well actually that is really offensive, and I think probably would be covered by existing law. Because it is if it’s intended to incite hatred, ridicule and contempt against a **Golriz** Against a racial group. **Stephen** against a racial group. If it’s a religion, often religious the power of of bad religion has only been defeated by satire, by ridicule, by exposure. And that’s just something if our law has always said sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt **Golriz** Okay, so, would you legalise defamation? **Stephen** Which which **Golriz** Because that’s a limitation on free speech. **Stephen** Which? **Golriz** Would you legalise incitement? **Newshub Nation** One at a time. Could we allow one person to speak at a time please? **Stephen** Would you allow the privacy commissioner would you allow the privacy commissioner to supress your record, to suppress your past? Our privacy commissioner wants to ban **Newshub Nation** Okay, let’s move away from personal attacks please. Ah, back to another example. Titahi Bay RSA planned to have a Muslim prayer in its civic Anzac service, the social media comments have been so vitriolic that police have taken half a dozen names also. How should that be dealt with, do you think, Stephen? **Stephen** I think it’s I think it’s like saying how do you deal with all those horrible comments about that very gracious gesture that the prime minister made when she wore a veil to the commemorations. She was saying to people we are standing with you, you are victims and we are with you, we are not hostile, and it was a wonderful thing to do. The viciousness about it speaks for itself. The horrible people on Facebook who are condemning her speak for themselves. In our society we have **Newshub Nation** So, we just let that happen? **Golriz** But people aren’t allowed to go the service because it’s unsafe. The police said it’s too unsafe now because of these comments. **Stephen** They haven’t said that at all. **Golriz** No, they have. ***\[Visual appeal to NN\]*** **Newshub Nation** They have. **Golriz** That’s actually what they have said. So, it has made people unsafe. **Newshub Nation** Wouldn’t addressing hate speech laws actually catch hate before it spills over into hate crime? We are talking about how you would prevent something like that. **Stephen** Well if there was any evidence of that it would be wonderful. I mean it’s something that **Golriz** How about the words UN Migration Pact being written on the butt of his gun? **Newshub Nation** We are going to have to leave it there. All right, thank you very much Golriz Ghahraman and Stephen Franks on the topic of hate speech. Thanks for joining us. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/31/f4/31f4e20a-0315-499e-83ff-139e8eab53bf/content/images/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/screen-shot-2019-04-06-at-10.05.56-am.png) Golriz Ghahraman & Stephen Franks on The Nation