High Court in New Zealand rules no rational basis to consider feminist lobby group Speak Up For Women a hate group

[Wharehina]

The New Zealand women’s rights campaigning group, Speak Up For Women, has recently organised a series of public events to discuss the addition of sex self-identification clauses to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, Relationships, Registration Bill which is currently before the NZ Parliament. Following lobbying by TRAs, who called SUFW a hate group, two councils cancelled SUFW’s bookings. With the backing of the Free Speech Union, SUFW representatives filed proceedings against the Auckland and Palmerston North Councils on the grounds that the cancellations were illegal as the Court of Appeal recently ruled that Councils have a legal duty to uphold freedom of speech and avoid political discrimination when hiring out ratepayer-funded spaces.

And SUFW won! The high court ruled that SUFW could not rationally be called a hate group, that the Council’s decision involved a serious failure to recognise the BORA (Bill of Rights Act) rights of SUFW and its members, and that the cancellation of the booking could not be considered a rational and reasonable limitation on those rights.

Full ruling here: speakupforwomen.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WHITMORE-Daphna-Kaye-v-Palmerston-North-City-Council-reasons-judg-20210624.pdf

Great news!

Wonderful news!

Good to hear.

I'm a fairly recent resident of NZ, so I don't even have the excuse of most people that it's-not-my-fault-I-was-just-born-here. I chose to come here, and now all this. One anti-women piece of crap after another. I've been wanting to wear a paper bag over my head at some of the drivel coming from politicians (one of whom I voted for ) about eg Hubbard.

Maybe things are turning here too.

That’s fantastic, well done Kiwi feminists!

It’s not hateful to think that women’s rights matter.

That's excellent to hear.

Great news.

Wasn't the background that the Council specified the nature of the debate and the way it would happen instead of letting SUFW to arrange things according to their own free choice?

[20] On Thursday 17 June 2021, the same person from the Council emailed the SUFW supporter stating:

After research and after seeking community feedback, we are now planning to replace it with a facilitated debate that enables all of the various viewpoints surrounding the BDMRR Bill to have a voice. This is our preferred approach, and one which we have usedin the past where diverse views have been held on controversial topics. Of paramount importance to us is providing a platform for informed and balanced dialogue. An invitation has been setto the MP in charge of the Bill, Minister Jan Tinetti, to come and speak. The date for such a debate is yet to be confirmed and an invitation to attend will be sent to Speak Up for Women.

@nauticant The council cancelled SUFW’s booking and said it would hold a debate instead. The judge stated that “the Council’s decision involved a serious failure to recognise the BORA rights of SUFW and its members. I consider the cancellation of the agreement reached with the Library, for the reasons and on the terms put forward by the Council, could not be considered a rational and reasonable limitation on those rights.”

This is a very significant win for women’s rights in New Zealand.

Yes, it's a good result. It's always a good idea to have a good grasp of what's been going on and so I thought it would help for people to understand that the booking hadn't been cancelled but had been modified in a direction that was against SUFW's wishes. That was still enough for the High Court in New Zealand to find a significant failure to recognise SUFW’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly.

The original booking was cancelled, and a debate proposed instead, at a later date. This was not acceptable to SUFW (or the judge).

This is great.

I meant to add this screenshot. SUFW were clear that their event had been cancelled when they filed High Court proceedings against the councils. (They settled with Auckland out of court.)

Thanks for clarifying where the judgement is unclear.

Hopefully this will be useable for other meetings and will encourage discussion with those who until now were in the dark.

Is New Zealand somewhere where the vibe is "free speech is important but of more importance is prioritising this group?"

Yes, I think this will be useable for other meetings as the judge stated that councils could not interfere with the format of proposed meetings etc, and the fact that the ruling states there is no rational reason to consider SUFW a hate group is enormously helpful. New Zealand is a strange country as politically it is quite progressive, but socially it is very conservative. I’d say that the average New Zealander would put free speech first, but the TRAs and social media activists and many elected officials have done a very good job of painting anyone who disagrees that TWAW as bigots and hateful. I think most normal New Zealanders outside the main centres have no idea this is all happening and would be appalled at the erosion of women’s and girls’ rights. The media is complicit in this - none of them have reported on his case.

It was an excellent decision - the media are not covering it of course.

Sorry I see Stuff finally has a tiny piece up with the obligatory "Controversial group' framing. Still nothing but the NZHerald and RNZ.

That doesn't sound to different to the UK Wharehina. Maybe New Zealand will follow the path that's (only just) starting to be followed in the UK, and not the one in Canada.

I hope so, @nauticant. The kiwi TRAs complain that gender criticism is imported from the UK, so let’s hope we can import more of the UK’s reaction to this nonsense, too.

@nauticant

That doesn't sound to different to the UK Wharehina. Maybe New Zealand will follow the path that's (only just) starting to be followed in the UK, and not the one in Canada.

Indeed. It sounds like where we were a few years ago. But with a positive court case under their belt already.

Being able to talk is the vital key. Well done those women.

The concern is the proposed Hate Speech law changes. They will absolutely be politicised if passed and used to punish gender critical voices.

The decision by the Judge was excellent but it is telling that the media has been silent, the Human Rights Commission has been silent and the Council of Civil Liberties has been silent on this case. None of them raised their voice to support the right to free expression.

Excellent news

Daphna Whitmore, who was the applicant in the case against Palmerston North council, has written a blog post about the case, here: rdln.wordpress.com/2021/06/26/speak-up-for-women-takes-on-councils-and-cancel-culture-bullies-and-wins/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

www.foxnews.com/media/olympic-weightlifter-lambrechs-women-new-zealand-laurel-hubbard

I’m posting this because I have seen no coverage of Tracey Lambrechs’ in the NZ media. This is the woman who Hubbard knocked out in NZ when Hubbard started weightlifting in the woman’s division.
“I got a phone call and they told me all my records had just been broken."
Laurel Hubbard smashed every record previously set in New Zealand by female athletes. Is this what female empowerment looks like?

Thanks for letting us know. This is a really important victory.

But as we know from the UK, even when a court gives legitimacy to gender critical views, there are those who are still organising to undermine or over turn.

Respect due to all those who have taken a stand.

Amazing news. Well done, SUFW/women of NZ.

Amazing!!!