It seems to me that the MoJ form frames the debate.
What of the reverse onus of proof etc
I assume that the answers will be tabulated into some form of data matrix as a matter of processing ease. But I hope the outcome will not be a matter of numbers being toted up.
Free speech is determined by philosophy but some legal drones call
that being 'academic'; however, ideas have real-world consequences once
out of the universities such as the 17thC puritan revolution (leading to the Bloody English Civil War- a war of ideas- and 48 years of censorship) and
Marxism and Critical Theory. Thus:
(1) Collectivists (Marxists Socialists etc) want uniformity of opinion and thought;
(2) Neo-Liberals seem to be individualistic and want a series of
"freedom froms" and little in the way of correlative duties-aka social
obligations. My experience of certain legal neo- lib group was that it was not interested in other people's opinions- it was only
their free speech- particularly if one's opinion was at odds with its. Added to
which there is a tendency in Neo liberalism to an anti-intellectual bias;
(3) The Classical liberal position is pro the individual and free
speech and the rights of the individual, freedom from paternalism;
people are to be robust but are also to have inbuilt morality and
judgment aka decency. Mill mentions minority discourse is to be polite
when confronted with dominant discourse;
(4) The Conservative position has absorbed the former as the
collectivist's mindset has advanced in our culture. It accepts the
values we have inherited and I would say that it is pro-John Milton's Aeropagitica,
that the value in free speech is to ascertain the truth as a social
good. A culture of PR spin and lies is doomed. It points to
intellectual freedom and freedom of conscience.
The Conservative position assumes the Miltonian vision which in my
view is the right one to hold. Yet as Michael Knowles says in
Speechless (2021) it tends to:
Conservatives have failed to thwart political correctness
because most do not understand what it is. They have portrayed
political correctness and its derivatives, including “wokeism” and
“cancel culture,” as “censorship,” which we must oppose in the name of
“liberty.” These bumper sticker arguments reveal that conservatives
understand as little about liberty and censorship as they do about
political correctness.
I have written pieces to move from the 'bumper sticker arguments' to
get on to the next rung of the ladder of understanding, for BFD et al
which I can not get published as I do not fit the publication style criteria. I understand that. People will raise their reading age to
know. Yesterday, I received my copy of Mark Levin's American Marxism
which is a good place to start to get substantive arguments up and
running . It is to be noted that one (maybe more) Special Rapporteurs
to the UN on Free Speech have counseled against hate speech
legislation. Flow on 2nd order consequences, and the Woke Clerisy are
not good at this, militate against the rush to hate speech
I do think that s 61 HRA 1993 should have religion added to it so as
to protect Christians among other faiths. And incitement left as it is.
"Stirring up" is too vague and elastic. would it involve the state as a
plaintiff if there are protests and differing opinions? Noting that
the 'misinformation witch hunt is rolling out here as it is in the USA.
The real essence involved or crux is that of freedom of conscience,
that which defines the individual. That has a religious origin. It
also holds that human nature exists and exists over time. It also has
standards about objective nature.
Marxists do not accept this and Gramsci's advocated the need to upend
common sense which is based on experience and physical reality.
Marxist's argue for the social construction of the world. Groups 2,-4
above are suffering from false consciousness. Critical Theory advocates
reject the law, objective knowledge and the western civilisation. Thus
we get galimatias like Geology is racist; 2+ 2=4 is 'white patriarchal
supremacy. But I am sure 2 + 2 = 4 in Maori culture.
Following Rousseau they say society is at fault and all can be fixed
with legislation and people are plastic non-entities and can be moulded
and re moulded thereby. This was said when the firearms legislation
arrived.
This is actually the real debate. Please see the quotes set out below.
ViamediaNZ.blogspot.com for earlier pieces. Not all the old ones are
up yet but many are featured on Solopassion thanks to Mr Perigo.
The cynical side of me sees the legislation being passed and this "consultation" as a safety valve for opinion and optics. Recall originally there was to be no consultation. Consultation does not oblige the MoJ to accept the content of any submission in making its ultimate decision.
