need to balance the right to express opinions that may be unpopular or controversial against material that is likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt. 29. The Commission took part in the proceedings in the capacity of an “intervener”. In its submission, the Commission took into account the high value placed on freedom of expression in international human rights law and domestically in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BORA”). The Commission noted that “international law mandates a high threshold for intervention to ensure the right to freedom of expression is infringed as little as possible.” In its decision, the Tribunal noted the cartoons were offensive but agreed with the Commission that the high threshold required for them to be unlawful had not been reached. 10 The Plaintiff has appealed this decision to the High Court. 30. Despite the Tribunal’s decision, and a pending appeal, some concerns continue to be raised with the Commission about the adequacy of the current legal framework to address issues of hate speech and incitement to racial hatred. 31. For example, it should be noted that both section 61 and section 131 are limited to instances of racial disharmony. Jurisprudence indicates that the provisions may only be applied to religious groups where membership is restricted to a pre-existing cultural group with a long-shared history and common belief as to their historical antecedents11. The provisions are therefore unable to be utilised in respect of religious hate speech directed at Muslim New Zealanders, who, for the most part, belong to a variety of ethnic minority communities in New Zealand. 32. The primary mechanism for dealing with complaints about section 61 is referral to mediation through the Human Rights Commission. If mediation does not resolve the complaint then a complainant can take a claim to the independent Human Rights Review Tribunal for determination. Some complainants and potential complainants have indicated to the Commission that they do not believe that mediation is an appropriate framework for dealing with complaints that regard hate speech or the incitement of racial disharmony. 33. In addition to sections 61 and 131 of the HRA, the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 provides that persons who are the subject to a harmful digital communication may lodge a complaint with Netsafe, an approved investigation and complaint resolution agency under that Act12. This includes communications that racially 10 Wall v Fairfax [2017] NZHRRT 17 King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531, Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548, for commentary see Brookers Human Rights Law, Vol.1, at HR21.13(3) 12 Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 sections 7-9 11 8