After ChristchurchAfter Christchurch

"This paper summarises provisions in international human rights standards, and in New Zealand law, that protect and qualify the right to freedom of expression. It also notes relevant recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch mosques. The paper then summarises regulation of harmful communication and some recent developments in the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, France and the European Union. A free, open and democratic society protects everyone’s right to freedom of opinion and expression but may justifiably qualify this right to prevent harm to others, if it does so in ways that conform to strict tests of legality, proportionality and necessity. There is an established consensus ininternational human rights law that it may be justifiable to restrict public communication that incites discrimination, hostility or violence against a social group with a common ‘protected characteristic’ such as nationality, race or religion. Regulation to protect people from criticism, offence or lack of respect is not a justifiable restriction of freedom of expression, and international human rights standards specifically discourage blasphemy laws. The recommendation of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that religion become a ‘protected characteristic’ without qualification in New Zealand’s regulation of harmful communication risks departing from an established consensus in international human rights law. International human rights standards also urge careful distinctions between (1) communication that is illegal and a criminal offence; (2) communication that is not a criminal offence but may justify a civil suit; and (3) so-called ‘lawful hate speech’ that does not give rise to criminal or civil sanctions,but may still raise concerns about tolerance, civility and respect for others."--Page 5.