The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill suffers from the common fault of slogan laws with good intentions, without realism about the risks of misuse. The announced expansion of what is considered a “specified act” goes in the wrong direction, says Stephen Franks, Council Member of the Free Speech Union.

“We've already seen the broad and vague terminology in the Harmful Digital Communications Act being used to silence legitimate dissent many times. This Bill is likely to be similarly abused.

“Truth should be a defense for ‘damaging, or undermining [a person’s] reputation, opportunities, or relationships’. That would save the centuries-long principle that protects the public interest in learning home truths about powerful people and wrongdoers. It is not enough to say the Bill lets you argue that truth is for a proper purpose. We know that courts have not held that telling the truth is presumptively a proper purpose.

“The broad definition of 'specified acts' as inducing fear or distress, combined with the low threshold for establishing a 'pattern of behaviour', already leaves wide scope for misuse against legitimate surveillance, and dissent. Likewise, the inclusion of ‘contacting or communicating with a person’ is vague and has the potential to be weaponised.

“By prioritising the term ‘fear or distress’ without a clear objective override, the Bill raises similar issues to ‘hate speech’ legislation. The law does not recognise that some people ought to be ashamed (“distressed”) by exposure of their own conduct.

“The Government’s decision to increase the timeframe for establishing a ‘pattern of behaviour’ from contact twice over 12 to 24 months also widens the net, making it more likely that isolated or infrequent expressions of dissent could be criminalised.

“We submitted our concerns in February, urging the Justice Select Committee to narrow their definitions, to clarify ‘specified acts’, and to provide better defences that would let the courts protect free speech. We call on the Minister of Justice to protect Kiwis’ speech rights as well as victims of stalking and harassment.”

© Scoop Media