A stoush between the Chief Human Rights Commissioner and a Jewish community leader has flared up following a showdown at Parliament.

Appearing before a parliamentary select committee today, Dr Stephen Rainbow was asked about his recent apology for incorrect comments he made about Muslims earlier this year.

“If my language has been injudicious . . .  then I have apologised for that,” he told MPs.

“I’ve apologised publicly. I’ve apologised privately. I’ve met with FIANZ [The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand] to hear their concerns and to apologise to them, both in person and publicly, and I hold to that apology.”

The apology relates to a meeting he had with Jewish community leader Philippa Yasbek, from the anti-Zionist Jewish groups Alternative Jewish Voices and Dayenu, in February.

Yasbek said Rainbow claimed during the meeting that the Security Intelligence Services (SIS) threat assessment found Muslims posed a greater threat to the Jewish community in New Zealand than white supremacists.

In fact, the report states “white identity-motivated violent extremism [W-IMVE] remains the dominant identity-motivated violent extremism ideology in New Zealand”.

Rainbow changed his position
Rainbow told the committee he had since changed his position after receiving new information.

He said was disappointed he had “allowed [his] words to create a perception there was a prejudice there” and he would do everything in his power to repair his relationship with the Muslim community.

“Please be assured that I take this as a learning, and I will be far more measured with my comments in future.”

But Rainbow disputed another of Yasbek’s assertions that he had also raised the supposed antisemitism of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“It’s going to be really unhelpful if I get into a he-said-she-said, but I did not say the comments that were attributed to me about that. I do not believe that,” Rainbow said.

“I emphatically deny that I said that.”

‘It definitely stuck in my mind’ – Jewish community leader
Yasbek, who called for Rainbow’s resignation yesterday, was watching the select committee hearing from the back of the room.

Speaking to reporters afterwards, Yasbek said she was certain Rainbow had made the comments about Afghan refugees.

“It was particularly memorable because it was so specific and he said that he was concerned about the risk of anti-semitism in the community of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“It’s very specific. It’s not a sort of detail that one is likely to make up, and it definitely stuck in my mind.”

Yasbek said the race relations commissioner and two Human Rights Commission staff members were also in the room and should be interviewed to corroborate what happened.

“There were multiple witnesses. I am concerned that he has impugned my integrity in that way which is why there should be an independent investigation of this matter.”

Raised reported comments
Speaking to RNZ later, FIANZ chairman Abdur Razzaq said he raised the commissioner’s reported comments about Afghan refugees when he met with Rainbow several weeks ago.

“I raised it at the meeting with him and he did not correct me. At my meeting there were other members of the Human Rights Commission. He did not say he didn’t [say that].”

Razzaq said it was up to the justice minister as to whether or not Rainbow was fit for the role.

“When you hear statements like this, like ‘greatest threat’, he has forgotten it was precisely this kind of Islamophobic sentiment which gave rise to the terrorist of March 15, rise to the right-wing extremist terrorists to take action and they justify it with these kinds of statements.”

“[The commissioner] calls himself an academic, a student of history. Where is his lessons learned on this aspect? To pick a Muslim community by name… he has to really genuinely look at himself as to what he is doing and what he is saying.”

Minister backs Rainbow: ‘Doing his best’
Speaking at Parliament following the hearing, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he backed Rainbow and believed the commissioner would learn from the experience.

“The new commissioner is doing his best. By his own admission he didn’t express himself well. He has apologised and he will be learning from that experience, and it is my expectation that he will be very careful in the way that he communicates in the future.”

Goldsmith said he stood by his appointment of Rainbow, despite the independent panel tasked with leading the process taking a different view.

“There’s a range of opinions on that. The advice that I had originally from the group was a real focus on legal skills, and I thought actually equally important was the ability to communicate ideas effectively.”

Speaking in Christchurch on Thursday afternoon, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Rainbow had got it “totally wrong” and it was appropriate he had apologised.

“He completely and quite wrongfully mischaracterised a New Zealand SIS report talking about threats to the Jewish community and he was wrong about that.

“He has subsequently apologised about that but equally Minister Goldsmith has or is talking to him about those comments as well.”

‘Not elabiorating further’
RNZ approached the Human Rights Commission on Thursday afternoon for a response to Yasbek doubling down on her recollection Rainbow had talked about the supposed antisemitism of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“The Chief Commissioner will not be elaborating further about what was said in the meeting,” a spokesperson said.

“He’s happy to discuss the matter privately with the people involved,” a spokesperson said.

“Dr Rainbow acknowledges that what was said caused harm and offence and what matters most is the impact on communities. That is why he has apologised unreservedly and stands by his apology.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The impending arrival of Kelly-Jean Keen-Minshull — aka Posie Parker — has put the spotlight on the tension between free speech and protecting vulnerable communities in Aotearoa New Zealand.

In particular, it raises questions about Immigration New Zealand’s role in limiting who can visit and speak in the country.

Keen-Minshull is an anti-transgender rights activist and founder of a group called Standing for Women. On the back of a controversial Australian tour, she is planning to speak at a series of events across Aotearoa at the end of March.

But Immigration New Zealand is now reviewing her status after about 30 members of the far-right Nationalist Socialist Movement supported her rally in Melbourne, clashing with LGBTQI supporters.

The Melbourne police were also criticised by legal observers, accused of protecting and supporting the neo-Nazis while focusing “excessive violence” on the LGBTQI supporters.

Meanwhile, National Party leader Chris Luxon has said Keen-Minshull should be allowed into New Zealand on the grounds of free speech. He argued there should be a “high bar” to stop someone entering the country because of what they say.

At the same time, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has said he condemned people who used their right to free speech in a way that deliberately sought to create division. Therein lies the core of the debate.

Members of a neo-Nazi group made Nazi salutes on Saturday on the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne, Australia, during a protest against transgender rights. Political leaders said they would move to ban Nazi salutes in the state of Victoria.https://t.co/0CHFICjr93

— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 20, 2023

Threat to public order
Keen-Minshull has allegedly had ties to white supremacist organisations, featuring in videos with Jean-François Gariépy, a prominent far-right YouTuber, and posting a selfie with Hans Jørgen Lysglimt Johansen, a Norwegian neo-Nazi known for Holocaust denial.

Keen-Minshull has also tweeted racist diatribes against Muslims.

The key question is whether the threat of unrest seen at Keen-Minshull’s events poses sufficient risk to public order to justify revoking her visa. It turns out there is a precedent for blocking entry to controversial figures.

In 2014, hip hop collective Odd Future was prevented from entering New Zealand on the grounds they and their audience had been implicated in violence against police and directing harassment towards opponents.

In one instance, members of Odd Future reportedly urged fans to attack police, leaving one officer hospitalised.

Odd Future member Tyler the Creator also unleashed a tirade against an activist who tried to have his Australian concert cancelled. Both instances were offered as reasons to prevent the collective from entering New Zealand.

Character judgements
The Immigration Act stipulates that individuals who are likely to be “a threat or risk” to security, public order or the public interest should not be eligible for a visa or entry permission.

In the past, good character requirements outlined by the act, including criminal background or deportation from other countries, have been used as a reason to block controversial speakers from entering New Zealand.

For example, Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church was denied entry to New Zealand after being deported from other countries.

Anderson has been known to promote Holocaust denial and has confirmed he believes in “hating homosexuals”.

On the flip side, alt-right speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern were granted entry visas in 2018 after meeting character requirements, despite calls for the pair to be banned from entering New Zealand.

Potential harm
Arguably, Keen-Minshull should not be granted entry under the banner of free speech. Rallies like those recently held in Australia do appear to cause concrete harm.

Research after the Christchurch Call, a political summit initiated by former prime minister Jacinda Ardern in 2019 after the Christchurch massacre, found expanding extremist communities increased the risk of physical attacks in the future.

According to the 2018 Counting Ourselves survey, some 71 percent of trans people reported experiencing high or very high rates of mental distress, and 44 percent experienced harassment during the 2018 survey period.

Research shows that trans people experience “minority stress” — high levels of chronic stress faced by socially marginalised groups, caused by poor social support, low socioeconomic status and prejudice.

A key part of “minority stress” is linked to anticipating and attempting to avoid discrimination.

Being consistent
Beyond the question of free speech, Immigration New Zealand needs to be consistent in its application of the law. In the case of Odd Future, an Immigration official admitted it was unusual to ban musical acts:

Generally it’s aimed at organisations like white supremacists and neo-Nazis, people who have come in here to be public speakers, holocaust deniers – those kinds of people.

However, Immigration stood by its decision based on the lead singer’s incitement of violence against police and harassment of an activist. Considering the ruling on Odd Future as a risk to public order, it would surely be inconsistent to allow Keen-Minshull entry.

In 2018, she was spoken to by UK police for making videos criticising the chief executive of transgender charity Mermaids. And, in 2019, Keen-Minshull recorded herself in Washington DC confronting trans advocate Sarah McBride after breaking into a private meeting.

Encouraging the far-right?
In the post-covid era, New Zealand has already seen a more visible far-right anti-LGBTQI movement. There has been a rise in harassment and attacks against LGBTQI communities across the country, including the arson of the Tauranga Rainbow Youth and Gender Dynamix building.

We need to listen to those targeted by hate groups — it is their safety that is at risk from speakers who deny their existence and humanity.

The line between free speech and causing harm is complicated to draw. But this case seems clear cut. Whether you agree or disagree with the 2014 decision to bar Odd Future entry to New Zealand, the precedent has been set for visitors who pose a threat to public order.

Kevin Veale, Lecturer in Media Studies, part of the Digital Cultures Laboratory in the School of Humanities, Media, and Creative Communication, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Police Commissioner admits some tow companies are reluctant to help with the removal of vehicles near Parliament but says some towing will begin today.

The anti-mandate protest on Parliament’s grounds and neighbouring streets is entering its ninth day.

Commissioner Andrew Coster told RNZ Morning Report he expected to see some of those vehicles towed today although it was unclear how many tow truck operators would take part.

The police action comes as the Ministry of Health reported 744 new community cases of covid-19 in New Zealand yesterday — a drop after consecutive record days that had seen omicron case numbers surge.

On Sunday, 981 new community cases of covid-19 were reported in the country.

A tow truck operator has told RNZ that the real reason the police have had difficulties getting towies to move vehicles was because many of them are sympathetic to the protesters’ cause.

Greg Cox, who owns Wellington’s Cox Heavy Salvage, said he has been contacted twice by police, and he has told them his vehicles are not available.

He said operators in the top half of the North Island are also refusing to help police.

Commissioner Coster agreed that there had been some reluctance by tow companies to be involved.

He said they had had some “constructive engagement” with operators and some may still be willing to play a part.

Some towies threatened
Some have said they have been threatened, while others say their vehicles are unavailable.

He said it was hard to gauge why the tow truck companies were reluctant and if they were sympathetic to the protesters.

“It’s hard for me to speak for what’s driving them but it’s clear that they are reluctant, and that’s very similar to the the treatment we saw overseas. Canada particularly has had a real problem with it.”

Police are in touch with the NZ Defence Force with a view to them helping with the removal operation.

“They have some capability, it won’t be the whole answer to the problem.”

Police have “some other tow capability” that they can draw on using some towing firms but he refused to discuss specifics.

“I expect you will see some tow activity today.”

Constructive dialogue
Constructive dialogue is also occurring with some of the protesters and he expects some of them will move their vehicles to a free parking area at Sky Stadium also.

“So that will be part of the answer.”

Police will hold on to the vehicles they remove and probably the courts will decide what happens in terms of them being returned to their owners.

“That’s the message to the protesters who are parked illegally — move your car to the stadium and we’ll not have any further interest in it.

“Leave it where it is and we will take it and we won’t be giving it back any time soon.”

Commissioner Coster is keen for a careful approach from police so they do not escalate the anger and resentment among protesters.

“It does call for patience. I know how frustrating the situation is for all concerned. It’s an unacceptable impact on people in the central city but we just have to work it through.”

Actions are unlawful
Commissioner Coster said while it was not the police’s aim to arrest the protesters, aspects of their actions were unlawful.

These included the extended blocking of the roads which was the biggest problem and extensive structures that have been erected on Parliament’s grounds.

Asked if Wellington police were caught out by the erection of tents at Parliament, where camping overnight is not allowed, Coster said the law around protest did not allow police many options early on to shut it down.

It was a balancing act, he said.

“Clearly this protest has crossed the line but the problem we have in the early stages is it might not have crossed the line but by then you have got a big problem on your hands.”

Morning Report invited protest organisers on to the programme to discuss their intentions for moving their vehicles but they said they were not yet ready to comment.

They have released a statement — issued on behalf of half a dozen groups including the so-called Voices for Freedom — which said they had been working with police on traffic management and were mindful of public safety and minimising disruption to those living and working in Wellington.

Towies are frightened – Wellington mayor
Wellington City Council has been engaging with towies who are under significant pressure, says mayor Andy Foster.

Some of them have been threatened over taking on the job of removing protesters’ vehicles and he was unaware of any who were sympathetic to the protesters.

“The feedback I’ve had, and I know they’ve been spoken to by our senior management, they are frightened.”

The towing of the vehicles was outside any contracts the council held with tow truck operators for vehicles parked illegally in the city.

Foster said it was unacceptable that the towies felt unsafe about accepting the work.

The mayor has visited the protest site several times and while most people seemed to be peaceful the site was “potentially intimidating”.

Offensive signs – nooses
Asked about offensive signs, such as pictures of nooses, Foster responded: “I think they would all do themselves a big favour if they stopped anybody behaving badly or they got rid of some of those signs.

“They would do everybody a favour. They would look more credible in the eyes of the public but those sorts of things will always let any movement down.”

Foster said he wanted people to be able to move freely around the streets without the fear of being threatened or abused.

“We want business to be back operating. We want all those the day before yesterday so as quickly as it can be done is good.

“But we’re working closely with police, supporting the police in the way they want.”

‘Impinging on others’ freedoms’ – Luxon
Protesters are calling for freedom but their actions are impacting on the freedom of others, opposition National Party leader Christopher Luxon says.

He told Morning Report he was pleased there were plans to move protesters’ vehicles because of the inconvenience to residents trying to get to schools and work and emergency services needing to move freely around the city.

He did not want to comment on the reluctance of tow truck operators to get involved because they were sympathetic to the protesters’ cause.

He preferred to leave it to the police who he trusted would sort it out.

Luxon, like the government, had no intention of engaging with protesters because they had no defined leadership and they were difficult to deal with because their issues covered such a wide range.

“They range from white supremacists to separatists and everything in between,” he said.

“There’s a wide range of issues from what we can gather from signage and things that range from anti-authority to anti-vaccination to anti-mandates…

‘Really anti-social and abusive’
“It’s tough when you come here and want to protest about freedoms and you actually end up impinging on others’ freedoms and the tone has been really anti-social and abusive.”

Luxon said the protesters should follow the rule of law and be respectful of others.

They did not seem to be taking into consideration that as a result of the occupation small businesses in the area were suffering.

Regarding his call for a timeline on the vaccine mandate, he said as omicron became endemic in a community the effectiveness of vaccine passes and mandates diminishes.

He believed there needed to be a discussion on the criteria and triggers for when the timeline could be put in place for their removal.

“There’s lots of other countries in the world who fundamentally as they’ve gone through this have had to say how they step out of it as well.”

The country was “in for quite a ride over the coming weeks and months” as omicron became endemic which was the pattern overseas so there should be clarity on the criteria for removing restrictions.

He said National did not want to see hospitality and tourism businesses fall over after two years of the pandemic and called on the government to defer spending on light rail and health restructuring and instead support the hardest hit sectors.

In response to rightwing blogger Cameron Slater’s criticism that Luxon was “hiding behind [Prime Minister] Jacinda Ardern’s skirts” regarding the protest, he said he did not know Slater and the National Party had been clear about its views on the protest from the start.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz