dc.contributor.advisor |
McLean, Janet |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Kirkpatrick, Aaron |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2020-11-16T23:14:03Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2020-11-16T23:14:03Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2020 |
en |
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2292/53636 |
|
dc.description |
Full Text is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland only. |
en |
dc.description.abstract |
Legislating on hate speech is a complicated endeavour, and this thesis contributes to better
understanding that endeavour in relation to religion and New Zealand. The starting premise is
that the best way to protect religious communities is to adopt a pluralist account of the state. A
pluralist state is inherently limited in its power, understanding that there are many legitimate
conceptions of the good life, and recognises the autonomy of religious communities in selfdetermining their own affairs. Since religions are communal and public, the pluralist state
protects religious communities and individuals in publicly expressing and manifesting their
beliefs and practices.
The power of the pluralist state is also practically moderated by the rule of law as certainty and
predictability. Since vague legislation tends to give too much discretion and power to executive
and judicial officials, a pluralist state generally tries to make its legislation clear to ordinary
citizens. Without clarity beforehand, citizens potentially face retroactive sanction.
A pluralist account of state authority and the rule of law as certainty can serve as theoretical and
practical standards against which to measure legislation regulating hate speech. Legislation
regulating expression of hatred, like section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1981, is inconsistent
with a pluralist state because it can also capture the content of expression, not just the manner of
the expression or its effects. Legislation regulating incitement to hatred, like section 61 of the
Human Rights Act 1993, is more variable but would be significantly worse if the legal standard
was lowered. Legislation regulating incitement to violence, like sections 66 and 311 of the
Crimes Act 1961, is fully consistent with a pluralist state as it guards civic peace between
communities and has the most definitional certainty. |
|
dc.publisher |
ResearchSpace@Auckland |
en |
dc.relation.ispartof |
Masters Thesis - University of Auckland |
en |
dc.relation.isreferencedby |
UoA |
en |
dc.rights |
Restricted Item. Full Text is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland only. |
en |
dc.rights |
Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. |
|
dc.rights.uri |
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm |
en |
dc.title |
Hate Speech, Religion, and Aotearoa New Zealand: Navigating Troubled Waters in the Wake of the Christchurch Mosque Attacks |
|
dc.type |
Thesis |
en |
thesis.degree.discipline |
Laws |
|
thesis.degree.grantor |
The University of Auckland |
en |
thesis.degree.level |
Masters |
en |
dc.date.updated |
2020-11-07T03:47:05Z |
|
dc.rights.holder |
Copyright: the author |
en |
dc.identifier.wikidata |
Q112952622 |
|