The Women’s Rights Party says the Government’s proposal for “Safer Online Services and Media Platforms” will silence dissenting voices, and censor conversations about topics that urgently need discussion.
In its submission to the “Safer Online Services and Media Platform” consultation document, due to today [Monday, 31 July], the Women’s Rights Party says the current climate in Aotearoa NZ “appears to support people claiming some sort of moral superiority who seem to be promoting their own belief systems whether they are political, religious, or philosophical.
“Malicious or unjustified complaints are likely to be made by people who want to silence those with a different viewpoint. A democratic society should not support this censorship.” Women’s Rights Party Leader Jill Ovens says the issue of who finds what content offensive or hurtful is open to wide interpretation.
“Defining physical harm is of course uncomplicated, but ‘social, emotional and mental wellbeing’ is impossible to define accurately or carefully enough to regulate without impinging on free speech rights,” Ms Ovens says.
“Disagreeing with someone in an online conversation is being described as harmful or unsafe and has led to employment issues and the shutting down of debate as we saw in
the aftermath of the Albert Park violence of 25 March.” Ms Ovens says the mainstream media has ignored the voices of women, while at the same time promoting and grossly overinflating the unjustified fears of “harm” which have been uncritically echoed by some politicians, and trans rights activists.
“Freedom of expression and a free press are critically important,” Ms Ovens, a former AUT journalism senior lecturer, says. “Unfortunately, it has been our experience that the rights to freedom of expression have not been enjoyed by the women of New Zealand who have been trying to stand up for their sex-based human rights, and to safeguard our children.”
The Women’s Rights Party is not reassured by the proposed changes in the consultation document. For example, the proposed Regulator would be an unelected body that would not be accountable to the public. The definition of hate or harmful speech is not objective, but entirely subjective, which makes monitoring or regulation impossible.
Further, codes of practice should be drafted in Parliament and follow the usual process of public consultation.
“While the proposed Codes of Practice would have processes for platforms to remove content, and reduce the distribution of unsafe content, it should be noted that we already have laws to protect New Zealanders against abuse and threats.“
The Women’s Rights Party is calling on the Government to actively defend democratic values, and to support and protect open discussion.