The Chief Censor has classified the Christchurch gunman's "crude booklet" as objectionable. it is considered Hate speech.
That means it's now an offence to possess or distribute it.
"It promotes, encourages and justifies acts of murder and terrorist violence against identified groups of people," David Shanks said on Saturday, in justifying the ban.

You are allowed to have a copy if you are researching the killers mind.

However the shooter was an advocate of socialism, and admirer of Communist China, which places him as a left wing extreme radical.

Is hate speech defined as
1. the promotion of murder of ideological opponents as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who has played footage of the Christchurch mosque shootings, just hours after meeting New Zealand's Foreign Minister and assuring him of the safety of Australians and New Zealanders visiting Gallipoli.
Winston Peters chose not to confront the President over his use of footage from the Christchurch attacks at campaign rallies, or his remarks about sending Australians and New Zealanders home in coffins.

2. Those that merely express their opinion of Islam as a religion or State law, as Pauline Hansen or Frazer Anning; or as those that oppose like David Kosh or Waleed Aly.

What is Hate speech?

The ban applies to New Zealand. Censors gotta censor.

Meanwhile, it seems 'Mien Kampf", 'Das Kapital' etc are still available for sale....for the time being.

Censorship is always wrong..never right. It always fails to achieve its aims and simply forces those who are engaged in 'crimethink' to go underground where their views can fester.

"What is Hate speech?"

Whatever the left decides it is. Its definition will be different tomorrow as compared to today. It's a mechanism to shut down debate so as to allow only approved views to be aired.

As a Christian you should stand against all hate speech
You God was about love not hate
If we can not find ways to stop it it will be outlawed

Hate speech should be shunned and frowned upon, but not legally banned.
Otherwise you can never tell when your own (right or wrong) views will be criminalised.

Would government ban, for example, the controversial Jewish 'Aleinu' prayer?
http://www.jewishtreats.org/2009/08/controversial-prayer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleinu
http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/talking-about-aleinu-3/

Reasonable people recognise hate speech without needing a definition. Unreasonable people like Greens leader di Natale thinks that hate speech is any comments or opinions he doesn't agree with.

Is the condemnation of others opinions or behaviour Hate? People like Frazer Anning and Pauline Hansen?

Is condemnation of the NZ shooter, identified as 28-year-old Australian citizen Brenton Harrison Tarrant, Hate speech?

Is condemning the Charlie Hebdo shooter and his ideology, for attacks that shook France in January 2015, taking the lives of 17 people, including 11 journalists; is that Hate speech?

Some social media have removed speeches and those that oppose the agenda of Islam from their platforms as they believe incite Hate. I believe by deleting such sends it underground to work their agenda secretly.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/16/europe/anjem-choudary-hate-preacher-convicted/index.html

Should we be able to condemn the ideology that promotes violence and be able to give warning of its presence among us, or is this Hate speech?
Should the people of Nigeria that refuse to bow to Islam be allowed to protect themselves or is this a demonstration of Hate?

Is Hate only identified if its intent is to promote violence or murder?
Is Hate speech identified if it causes social or political division.
Is what is happening in the USA by the democrats against Trump supporters Hate?
Should we just ignore threats or speak up against them?

If people don't want to be hated then they should refrain from behaving in an offensive manner !
Same goes for Hate speech. Don't dish out what you can't handle yourself !

From what I understand the shooter's manefesto advocates violence against minorities and on that basis it breaks the law, if this is true then banning the manefesto is not a freedom of speech issue. However, if it does not directly incite violence then the banning is more problematic.
Secondly, in the internet age, banning something often raises its profile and makes it more desireable. For example the banning of the shooting video contributed to it going viral so much so that 50% of Christchurch kids had seen it by the following Monday.

Finally, the definition for many has been stretched to include anything they find offensive, and given the increased sensitivity today, 18c is a license to sue, which is why the term offence needs to removed from the legislation.

The murderer was a fan of North Korea (I didn't know about his admiration for China) so it's very likely that he would denigrate democracy and personal freedoms, and support dictatorship and authoritarianism.

Those young air-heads who don't think that democracy has all the answers (yes, they're right there but so what? It'll never be perfect: if you want perfect, you'll be waiting a long time ) need to pull back, consider this mongrel's similar denigration of democracy, and have the courage and diligence to compare it with dictatorships of all kinds before they write it off.

But since they already know everything, that's a faint hope.

Joe

generally 'hate' speach for the left equals truth.

I just heard that NZ has passed legislation that if anyone possesses a copy of the Brenton Harrison Tarrant manifesto, it will bring a 14 year jail term. Also a Muslim person has been arrested for promoting violence.

NZ chief censor David Shanks has stated; "Freedom of speech is fundamental to our democracy, and we must move carefully when limiting it. But this shooters manifesto advocates atrocity and includes practical advice on how to achieve it. That's over the line.
Some will say that a ban in New Zealand is pointless because the document is available on overseas websites.
While our Parliament cannot police what happens overseas, we censor objectionable material".

'I just heard that NZ has passed legislation that if anyone possesses a copy of the Brenton Harrison Tarrant manifesto, it will bring a 14 year jail term. '

yep and of course the Koran is still freely available.

Last night's Q&A was a crystal clear example of insidious hate speech. That program needs to be shelved !

I think that it is quite clear which statements
may increase racial hatred and division. Most
people have a common sense about where the line
is to be drawn. Pointing fingers of blame or
responsibility on groups is a very unfair way to
approach political discussions. However there
appears a clear position that appeals to race and
religion have become more acceptable and more common
in Australian politics.

'I think that it is quite clear which statements
may increase racial hatred and division'

certainly kill the infidel, wipe Israel off the map, fake race crimes (Justin Mollet),behead Trump jokes by liberals. Yep sensible people reconise hate speach. They also spot virtue signalling pretty well.

Foxy,

Common sense is actually not that common and comes second to self interest and bias.

I really do have concerns about proscribing the shooter's manifesto, especially with such penalties attached. However I do understand why NZ felt this was a necessary part of their drive to combat right-wing extremism. My fear is that is will give the document some legitimacy although once you read it it is obvious how high-school level at best it really is.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote;

“However the shooter was an advocate of socialism, and admirer of Communist China, which places him as a left wing extreme radical.”

Rubbish. The bloke admired Trump and said the former leader of the British Union of Fascists “Sir Oswald Mosley is the person from history closest to my own beliefs.”

He also referred to Blair Cottrell of the United Patriot Front as his 'emperor'.

He said in his own naff little q&a;

“Were/are you a christian? That is complicated.” … “Were/are you “right wing”? Depending on the definition, sure. Were/are you “left wing”? Depending on the definition, sure. Were/are you a socialist? Depending on the definition.” Hardly definitive is it.

His call to Christians was firmly made quoting the words of a former Pope; “Let our lives be stronger than death to fight against the enemies of the Christian people.”

So to the question of hate speech. The NZ government clearly thinks the manifesto constitutes hate speech. Yet there are many sentiments from right wingers like yourself which clearly echo the words and sentiments contained therein. Our job is to determine what parts of this clearly hateful document deserve the charge and then assess the words of others against that measure. If you conclude there is nothing within it that qualifies then we obviously have a problem.

So you have clearly read it, what do you judge as the more hateful parts of it, parts that you would staunchly disown and call hate speech?

Be careful what you wish for !
Are the restrictions on "hate speech" applying to printed matter ?
If not, then that would generate some very nice legal argument.
If it does then there is no way that the Koran would have to be seized
wherever you find them and burn it.
Some verses are really obnoxious.
Also I just wonder how often they are part of sermons in mosques ?
Here is an example of how far it can go.

A Nigerian ethnic preacher in London was a street preacher.
We have all seen and heard them at some time.
A muslim went to a policeman and complained that the Preacher Olo, had
said something that offended him. The reports never said what it was.
The police told Olo to go away as he was causing a disturbance.
The video did not show any other people than Olo and the policeman.
He said that police could not stop him preaching so the police
arrested and charged him.
He was found guilty and sent to gaol.

Here is just a couple of examples of Koranic verses;
Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then
kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (2:191)

Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood. (9:123)

Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or
refuse to pay Jizya tax. (9:29)

There are many worse than these.
So if you are going to stop hate speech the Koran would be a good starting point.
If you know a muslim ask them if they reject these verses.
I hope you can now see the traps in banning "hate speech".

Bazz,
What they haven't come to realise yet is that to us they are the Infidels !

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-woman-on-centrelink-found-with-almost-250-000-in-cash-in-safe-20190327-p5187e.html

That doesn't help the racists either to further their cause.

Muslims are asking NZ prime minister to lobby China. The Chinese Communist Party do not need a new political system based on Shariah. The below link shows how China treats Muslims.

http://www.google.com.au/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwiG-cDEhazhAhXKHCsKHV_2CJYYABAAGgJzZg&sig=AOD64_2nWzyMdFJLRmG1Cr4ypSQIwpnfhQ&q=&ved=2ahUKEwjc6LrEhazhAhWUXCsKHU_fCbUQ0Qx6BAgKEAE&adurl=

Individual;
The authorities, the trendy influential people that surround
government, opposition and what we now call the "woke" are in for a
tough time getting legislation that fits their fuzzy logic.
I have seen one suggestion that anyone suggesting that Koran verses
such as Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to
Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax. (9:29)

be published as;

Kill the Moslems if they do not convert to Christianity or Judaism and
refuse to pay a tithe to the Church. (9:29)

Now lawyers can think about that and rub their hands with glee.
The court time would be a fantastic treasure trove.
This is the reason why it will be impossible to maintain legislation
of this type in a sane society. Well we do seem to be going mad !

Before we can even begin to worry about those who are aspiring to bring us under the yoke of inexplicable mentality we must focus on reversing the dumbing-down of our own.
I was watching TV all afternoon when they showed the history of Australia & it was very clear when the rot started. It was when they stopped national Service. There was this teacher called White who was drafted to go to Vietnam but refused. He set the precedent ! He was quite happy to live a good safe, life provided for by those who fought before him but when it was time for him to put in an effort for those after him he crapped himself along with just about every other Labor voter.
And, as they say, the rest is history !

I could not take action against anyone who says they "hate" my world view [religion or beliefs] but if they intend to do me harm or reduce my status; it is time to take action. We have a right to our beliefs, but they do not or I do not have a right to damage them by violence. Debate ideas, research facts; should be equally open to all.

Josephus,

It is corrosive no matter how tough you think
you are to log on and see that torrent of abuse.
People who argue about the point being freedom of speech -
a cause fought for the hardest by those who have the
nastiest thing to say. It saps your energy - what's
the point.

None of us should reduce human inter-action to tedious
name-calling and demonisaton. We all could do with
drawing breath, pausing, and considering our
position before we open our mouths. Because what we say
and do does have consequences - as we've seen.
Look at the numbers who have left this forum - and
even at those who now post very rarely. That should
tell us a great deal.

I often wonder while out shopping - what if I looked
different, spoke differently, dressed differently,
who comfortable would I be made to feel in our
communities?

A smile you give is a smile you get back - so the old
saying goes - perhaps more of us should try that.

Dear Josephus,

This is pretty easy really, if you take something you write about Muslims and instead use the words Jews or Jewish and it sounds like hate speech then it probably is.

For instance when you posted “Muslim Men in the West have rights to rape children as this is their culture.” it qualifies as hate speech. Someone employing your mindset might just as easily say “Jewish religious leaders have the right to ritually suck the penises of young male infants.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

You are of course a purveyor of hate speech. It is just that your target is deemed acceptable at the moment to a wedge of Australians.

Dear Shadow Minister,

What an utter hypocrite you are, any slightest criticism of Israel and out comes your oft repeated accusation of Antisemitism. But you want free licence for anyone to bang on about Muslims.

You really are a shocker mate.

SR,

And you appear to be off your rocker here. I have not mentioned or alluded to muslims or Israel on this thread?

Dear Shadow Minister,

My dear old chap you are the one calling for the easing of 18C so that those who engaging in hate speech can do so with gay abandon without the impediment of as mhaze puts it "a mechanism to shut down debate so as to allow only approved views to be aired."

Yet you constantly use the slur of antisemitism to shut down criticisms of Israel.

Pray tell me the difference.

So according to Foxy a SR any one who takes offence at another's belief is to be criminalised for hate. I hate people who decapitate innocent citizens because of their belief. But that is now a criminal offense.

When I went to school offending someone was common place for their wacky beliefs. The ditty repeated was: sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." So we will now engage a thought police to keep check on the moods and expressions of anger, so no one gets their feelings hurt. however we see this in every public demonstration, to intimidate an opposition. We call it a democratic right, but it is expression of hate.

SR,

I take that as a grudging acceptance that your vitriolic attack was completely unwarranted.

The issue that I have with 18c is that the entire clause is an attack on free speech, but in particular the word "offend" is almost entirely subjective, which enables the prosecution of people based on unintended inuendo such as seen in several recent abuses of the justice system.

Secondly, while it is theoretically possible to be anti Israel and support BDS while not being anti semetic, the reality is that many or most of the supporters are deeply anti semetic. The prime example of criticising Israel while not acknowledging the abuses by hamas is recognised as anti semetic, and I will call it out.