Foreword On 15 March 2019, fifty-one people were killed at their place of worship. The Christchurch mosque massacres shook the country’s foundations and generated deep soul-searching. People asked, what was the source of this hate? Have we been doing enough to tackle Islamophobia, racism and antisemitism? As a multicultural society, based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, how can we defeat these and other forms of hate, for example, against disabled people, women and the rainbow community? How can we promote an inclusive society that encompasses all individuals and communities, including those who feel silenced and forgotten? What are the core values that should guide our collective response to 15 March? As these questions imply, the appropriate collective response to the massacres will include local, national and international initiatives. It will encompass a variety of policies, programmes and practices. The legislation prohibiting semi-automatic weapons, enacted in April this year, demonstrates that law has a role to play. In short, the response to 15 March will be complex and multifaceted. This report addresses only one corner of this large canvass: hate speech, also known as harmful speech. Are New Zealand’s existing laws on hate speech fit for purpose? Does the current legal framework strike the correct balance between freedom of expression and other human rights, such as non-discrimination and equality? Do the laws discharge the government’s fundamental obligation to ensure that all individuals and communities are safe and secure from avoidable harm? All responsible countries wrestle with these challenging questions. For example, in a leading US Supreme Court case, Justice Frank Murphy outlined when speech may 1 be curtailed, including in relation to the “lewd and obscene, the profane, the libellous and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words – those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”1 As the present report demonstrates, the United Nations has much to say on hate speech. In 2004 a parliamentary committee reviewed New Zealand’s hate speech laws but regrettably does not appear to have published a report. This paper aims to provide an accessible introduction to hate or harmful speech in national and international law. It serves as a resource i.e. it need not be read from beginning to end. Some readers may prefer to read Part I which includes the reasons for and against the regulation of hate speech. Other readers may prefer to focus on Part II which introduces the relevant international human rights law. While others may wish to look at Part III on New Zealand’s current hate speech laws, or Part IV on the approach of some other countries, including Australia and Canada, to hate speech. Importantly, the report aims to be neither comprehensive nor an account of the position of the Human Rights Commission in relation to hate or harmful speech. Instead, the publication is another example of what the Commission has consistently tried to do since 15 March: provide a modest contribution to complex issues with a view to engendering well-informed, inclusive and respectful discussion. Aotearoa New Zealand will not be defined by 15 March, it will be defined by our collective long-term response to the catastrophe. Paul Hunt Chief Human Rights Commissioner Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 (1942) at 571-572. Justice Felix Frankfurter cited Justice Frank Murphy in Beauharnais v Illinois 343 US 250 (1952) at 256. 1