The attack on the Indian community by Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki is a timely reminder about why we have limitations on freedom of speech in New Zealand. In this timely reminder, I am pushed to think that the case for compulsory Civics in school just got stronger.
In the speech Mr Tamaki promoted the removal of Indians – namely Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims – from New Zealand.
Those limitations exist for good reason, not least to ensure that society retains a cohesive order and help to guarantee national security. They also exist to ensure a modicum of public dignity among all societal groups, individuals, communities and so forth.
People will ask for examples freedom of speech going too far. Referring to people as primates because of the colour of their skin, calling people of Asiastic descent yellow, or Latin Americans as monkeys are all examples of freedom of speech having crossed a line. This is demonisation of the target, deliberately degrading them to being lesser people, and justifying in the mind of the provocateur their attitude towards those people.
New Zealand signed the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966 and ratified it not long after.
The wording of Article 19, which pertains to Freedom of Speech, and its limitations is verbatim below:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
It is also concerning that 7 years after the Christchurch Mosques attack, there are individuals overseas who state that they were inspired by the Mosques gunman. An investigation into a shooting at an Islamic Center in the United States in May 2026 shows that the gunmen there were inspired by the Christchurch Mosques attacker. Despite it being a criminal offence to possess, download, distribute or promote the manifesto of the attacker, it is clear that there are elements of society who have done so.
People who talk about freedom of speech want to know what is defined as hate speech. It is usually a question with an answer that they know, but it is anathema to them. Still, by answering the question, it shuts down another avenue for promoters of hate speech to push back on.
Mr Tamaki pushes a fine line. At some point society will deem him to have crossed it irretrievably and be compelled to act. I believe that he crossed it when Destiny Church stormed the Te Atatu library and tried to interrupt completely legitimate, peaceful story time telling by the drag community to children. I acted against that with a petition that across two sites, gained 16,600 signatures, reached Parliament and was referred to the Minister responsible for the charities sector, Hon. Louise Upston.
Will Mr Tamaki do this again? Yes. His call to purge New Zealand of Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus is another aggression promoting act that needs to be called out across the board by all people.
Should we call it out? ABSOLUTELY.
Despite what A.C.T. Leader David Seymour, New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters and the Free Speech Union will tell you:
It is not freedom of speech. It is hate speech.
Discover more from Leftist Kiwi Writes
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.