McBLOG: Chloe proves the danger of ‘hate speech’ laws

In a recent interview on TVNZ”s Q&A, a promoter of hate speech laws – Green MP Chloe Swarbrick – proved to us just how flawed & dangerous hate speech laws would be. This is because ‘hate speech’ is generally defined by the promoters of such a law, who then use them inconsistently but always to their advantage. Read more:


In 2022, the Labour Government released a discussion document on hate speech laws that intended to strengthen protections against speech inciting hatred or discrimination because they said they didn’t believe the law was clear enough, specifically highlighting that trans, gender diverse and intersex people needed to be protected from “discrimination”. They said the final proposal would make changes to clarify this by changing the word “sex” (currently understood as biological sex as would be naturally expected) – changed to include “sex characteristics or intersex status” and adding a new ground of “gender including gender expression and gender identity”.

Similarly, the Greens have campaigned for several years on extending hate-speech laws on similar categories.

Fortunately the push back by the general public was so strong that Labour ditched the proposals.

And the good news is that in the coalition agreement between National and ACT, the hate speech proposals are off the agenda, and the Law Commission has been told to stop the work that Labour was trying to get it to do on the issue. Great stuff.

But that doesn’t mean we won’t see continued attempts to introduce hate speech laws by the left. Rust never sleeps. We need to stay vigilant.

But if you want to see the problem with hate speech laws, ironically it was Greens MP Chloe Swarbrick who confirmed that the radical left will define hate speech – and it will be based on just speech that they don’t like.

You may recall in 2019 with Duncan Garner on The AM Show then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern identified the “threshold” between reasonable criticism and hate speech as: “When you see it you know it.”

When you see it you know it.” In other words, you may not know until afterwards that you’ve broken the law. Depending on who gets upset. Who decides what are “insulting words” likely to “excite hostility” or “bring into contempt? Who decides “harm”? The government? The media? Social media outcry?

And of course there is the new form of hate speech in the form of “disinformation”.

The Disinformation Project for example studies misinformation and disinformation in New Zealand. They released a report last year which said:

“…far-right and conservative ideologies around issues such as… ‘free speech’; faith (Christian evangelical or Pentecostal); abortion; euthanasia; cannabis law reform; families and family structure; LGBTQIA+ rights, including conversion therapy; immigration; race; and gender.”   

Then in one of my favourite clips of all time, the head of the Disinformation Project appeared on a government funded programme on TVNZ called “Web of Chaos” where there was an explanation of how certain people – gullible people – become conspiracy theorists and purveyors of disinformation (code – hate speech!) – which has striking consequences for social cohesion and democracy.

Check out the list – and apologies to any mothers who may be watching. Apparently you are the problem.

A beautiful fair skinned blond or red head child with braiding and flowers, just – step – back.

In a UN speech in 2022 which garnered significant international criticism and some commentators believe that the negative reaction to this speech may have been part of the reason for the government’s partial backdown on hate speech laws, Jacinda Ardern linked the phrase “disinformation” with weapons, the face of war and hateful speech.

So this is all hate speech – as defined by the left.

But when you shout “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” which is well-known code for the elimination of the state of Israel, and which Jewish people rightly find abhorrent….. it’s ok. Apparently.

Here’s Chloe using a phrase calling for the elimination of Israel

And it’s not the first time that Chloe and other Green MPs have been associated with that phrase.

Now sometimes the media surprises us and actually calls out the hypocrisy of someone who says that “words are violence” but then uses words that Jewish people see as a threat of violence, which Jews find highly offensive, and which they have actually met with Chloe and told her that to her face.

And Jack Tame on Q&A (who of all of the media I do have some time and respect for as a semi-balanced interviewer) tackled Chloe on this hypocrisy. Have a watch of the clip. To Jack’s credit he doesn’t allow Chloe to change the topic, as much as she tries to, and watch the very good point that Jack makes at the end

Well done, Jack.

One of the most disturbing realities of criminalising “hateful” speech is that there is simply no agreement on the definition of what constitutes “hate” speech.

When hate speech laws are passed in any country, it’s pushed by the radical left – and defined by them. Advocates for hate speech laws clearly disagree with a morally conservative or traditional worldview. A Christian worldview. The finger is generally pointed at conservatives for so-called “Online hate”.

I personally don’t think Chloe should be criminalised for using that phrase. I actually think it brings out into the light exactly what they think and their agenda. I can totally understand why Jewish people find it highly offensive – but when we know exactly what Chloe and many others on the left really think, it means we can call out their agenda for what it really is. A two-state solution is an oxymoron. It will never be a solution in the eyes of the radical left. Only the elimination as demonstrated by Hamas is their solution.

In a free and open society, distasteful opinions are met with open inquiry, civil dialogue and debate. If I don’t like what you say, even if I find it offensive, I meet your ideas with my own in an attempt to discover something approaching the truth.

Political activists and special interest groups will miss the important distinction between hate-speech, and merely speech they hate, and end up using such laws as tools of political intimidation to punish opponents and shut down debate in the marketplace of ideas.

If you’d like to learn more on this hot topic, go to our website to learn more.

The greatest irony is that it was a promoter of hate speech laws – Chloe Swarbrick – who proved to us just how flawed those laws would be, and how the left will use them inconsistently but always to their advantage.

Thanks Chloe for making that so obvious.

Scroll to Top