Section 14

The Greens, United Future, Act, and the Maori Party joined forces this afternoon to call for the repeal of New Zealand’s archaic sedition law, lending their support to the Law Commission’s report recommending the same.

“In a country that champions itself as a free and fair democracy the existence of sedition laws is an unnecessary restraint on the political rights of New Zealanders,” said the MPs.

“The problem we have with the law of sedition is that while it continues to exist in this country true freedom of expression is compromised.”

In the past, sedition laws have been used against Taranaki Maori leader Te Whiti in the wake of the Parihaka invasion, and against then-future Labour Prime Ministers Peter Fraser for opposing conscription during World War I and Walter Nash for importing communist propaganda. (No Right Turn has an index of sedition cases in New Zealand.)

More recently, Tim Selwyn was convicted of sedition for distributing pamphlets encouraging people to copy his axe attack on the Prime Minister’s office. This has sparked a rash of threats to prosecute for sedition for some extremely silly things.

Peter Dunne noted at this afternoon’s press conference that together the four parties had fifteen votes, making a majority in Parliament if either main party joined them.

Kudos to all involved, especially if they manage to get this law off the books. A few hours ago I would never have imagined that you put these four parties in the same room and expect anything sensible to come out but credit where credit’s due - this is a creditable move.

UPDATE 25/4/07: Idiot/Savant has set up a pledge at Pledgebank to write to the Minister of Justice urging the repeal of New Zealand’s sedition laws as long as 20 others do the same, so sign the pledge and get writing.

UPDATE 26/4/07: The pledge has collected the signatures needed to trigger it. Kudos to Idiot/Savant for relentlessly pushing for sedition law reform. If you signed the pledge, now’s the time to keep your end of the bargain and write that letter to Mark Burton to make sure we get the result we want. If you didn’t sign, you still can.

Sheik Feiz Mohammed’s call for his followers to “have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam” has attracted deserved outrage in the days since his “Death Series” DVDs were posted on YouTube (they have since been removed).

Sheik Mohammed is already under investigation for his links to a group arrested in Sydney during an anti-terrorism operation and is now being investigated in conection with these videos. Australian officials are calling for the DVDs to be banned and for Sheik Mohammed to be prosecuted for incitement to violence, inciting racial hatred, sedition, or presumably whatever else can be made to fit.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn rightly points out that

Prosecuting Mohammed is likely to [turn him into a martyr for freedom of speech, and give his views far more prominence and credibility than they deserve], with the added bonus of symbolising Australia’s hatred of Muslims - something which is not exactly going to help in the battle for “hearts and minds”.

Freedom of speech cuts both ways, and applies to views you don’t like as well as those you do. Sheik Mohammed’s views are vile and hateful, but they do not in and of themselves harm anyone. They are offensive, but giving offence is not harm.

I/S also makes an “obvious” comparison to the David Irving case. I don’t think the comparison is as obvious as I/S makes out and it downplays Sheik Mohammed’s evil. Irving promotes a demostrably false version of history that many, particularly Jews, find offensive. As noted above, “giving offence is not harm”.

Sheik Mohammed, while causing no direct harm himself, calls for others to do just that:

“Teach them this: there is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid. Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom.”

I.e., brainwash your children to kill themselves and murder others.

It is important that these words are said out loud, in public. Not so that people can follow his instructions, but so that we can truly understand the nature of freedom’s enemies; so that those who would claim that Islam isn’t that awful feel compelled to make their case in public.

The incitement to violence here is not direct enough to warrant a ban. There is still room to think between the impulse and the response. And the educational value of having the views of these so-called “leaders” aired in public is immense.

UPDATE 26/01/07: Dr Mirko Bagaric, head of the Deakin Law School in Melbourne and NZ Herald guest columnist, agrees in part.