Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is winning praise for her campaign to clean up the internet, and in particular for her announcement of the “Christchurch Call” Summit to be held with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris next month. And if they can come up with some meaningful and effective ways to make the internet less available to terrorists and violent extremists then this will be a major accomplishment.

Regulating the internet is notoriously difficult, however. It might be one of the big issues of our time, but no one seems to have the answers for how to do it in a way that will be both effective and satisfactory. There’s a good chance the whole episode will amount to yet another talkfest of platitudes and politicking. This is certainly the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper, who forecasts an outcome of “full, frank and meaningless words” – see: Irony to New Zealand and France’s terrorism summit next month.

Not only this, Soper suggests that the motivations for the summit are opportunistic: “The idea no doubt came from the French President Emmanuel Macron who’s been haemorrhaging in the opinion polls at home… The international voice of reason and compassion Jacinda Ardern would have immediately come to mind and the pledge she’s now calling the Christchurch Call was born.”

The Herald’s political editor takes umbrage at such scepticism, declaring this type of view out of place: “They are the sort of critic who would never start anything unless success were guaranteed. The suggestion that Ardern do nothing after the murders of 50 people in New Zealand were live-streamed and shared on social media is to deny human nature and New Zealand’s own instincts” – see: Jacinda Ardern is knee-deep in planning joint initiative with France.

Audrey Young predicts real change will emerge from a difficult area of reform: “It won’t eliminate the evils that lurk within social media. But it won’t be nothing either.” She sees it as a positive sign that Ardern and Macron are being so inclusive in their approach: “Ardern’s natural instincts are to collaborate as broadly as possible… That factor alone makes it important to get co-operation from social media themselves, rather than using heavy-handed regulation or attempting to bully the corporates into participation.”

However, as with other international agreements, the more people you bring to the table, the greater the likelihood of a watered-down outcome. And this is the point made in Tom Pullar-Strecker’s article, The devil will be in the detail of the ‘Christchurch Call’. This reports Colin Gavaghan, director of the Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies at Otago University, as cautioning against going too broadly: “The risk, he argues, is you can end up with texts that are pitched at such a level that ‘no-one could disagree with them’ but which don’t tend to mean anything in practice.”

Pullar-Strecker’s article emphasises the uniqueness of this summit, as normally the outcomes are relatively pre-determined, with a text negotiated in advance for participants to sign up to. This won’t necessarily happen in this instance.

The success or otherwise of the initiative will be determined, it seems, by how ambitious the internet regulation campaign ends up being. Ardern, herself, is very keen to see a narrow focus for the regulations, which deal specifically with the online sharing of terrorist acts. Ardern says: “This is not about freedom of expression. This is about preventing violence and extremism and terrorism online”.

This approach is easier than going down the route of attempting to take on “hate speech” and extremist politics in general. And that is also the advice of Paul Brislen: “There are a number of things they should be looking at. The trick will be narrowing it down to something that is achievable because there are so many things that are getting out of control with the world of social media that need a regulator to step in… Trying to stay focused is going to be critical” – see Thomas Coughlan’s Speculation rife on value of ‘Christchurch Call’.

But even a focus just on violence and terrorism could be incredibly difficult. The same article makes this point: “Victoria University of Wellington media studies lecturer Peter Thompson said just defining what terrorism was presented difficulties. ‘It’s not a straightforward thing to decide what is and isn’t terrorism: live-streaming mass murder, well yes, but how do you decide which groups are considered terrorists or not?’ he said.”

Rick Shera from Netsafe and Internet NZ is also pleased that the Government is focused on dealing to the narrower and less contentious issue of terrorism: “I’m glad we are sticking to violent extremism and terrorism. Once you go into fake news, damage to democracy and other forms of online harm it becomes very difficult. Freedom of speech and the US position on that make it hard to make gains, so if the target is narrow it may be easier” – see Colin Peacock’s Does social media reform have the law on its side?

In this article by Peacock, the major issue of the United States is brought into the debate. After all, the US tech companies are based there, and benefit from that country’s very strong ethos and constitutional protections of political freedoms. This is lamented by some participants in the debate. For example, Internet NZ’s chief executive Jordan Carter is quoted, saying “The nature of their black and white constitutional protections on free speech in the US – and the current state of their politics – don’t leave me with any confidence that they will be able to drive change in this area”.

Clearly, the strong US resistance to censorship and over-regulation of speech means that Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” could run into problems. And it’s not just the US Constitution that might stymie reform, as explained by tech expert and journalist Bill Bennett, in Peacock’s article: “The problem with the US is they have two things that stop them from acting. One is the First Amendment which is all about free speech and not censoring people. The second thing is something called Section 230 that gives social media companies an out. They are not responsible for things posted on their site”.

There are, however, some major debates going on in the US about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And the above article reports internet law academic Eric Goldman suggesting that any subsequent changes from that debate might be crucial: “He thinks cutbacks of Section 230’s scope do pose serious risks to free speech online. So is it the outcome of this behind-the-scenes legal argument playing out in the US right now – and not a headline-making political summit in France – which will really determine whether internet giants take responsibility for extreme content on their platforms?”

For the best discussion of these political freedom issues, see Gordon Campbell’s column, On Ardern and Macron’s campaign against violent social media content. In this, Campbell explains what might be coming after two decades of self-regulation of the internet, given the strong political appetite for serious regulation.

He worries that Ardern and co will end up going beyond just the clampdown on terrorist and extremist violence, and might produce something that impacts on general political activity: “Once you get beyond those low hanging fruit….it becomes difficult to censor online content without doing real damage to freedom of expression, and to genuine political dissent. It would be unfortunate if the best friends of the Ardern/Macron initiatives turn out to be the tyrants in countries that would (a) dearly love to see tech companies forced to hand over the keys to encryption, and (b) would readily embrace further restrictions being put on the online content their dissidents are allowed to post.”

He also believes regulation could ultimately prove unpopular, which is why Facebook and the like want it to be carried out by governments, “presumably, so that the politicians then get to wear the backlash once people realise the full implications of allowing the state to define and police the content deemed acceptable on the Net.”

Mostly likely, there will be simple progress made in Paris, such as tightening up of Facebook Live. The big question will be whether online providers end up having to do more vetting of content before it’s published, which would be of huge consequence, and what Campbell calls a “disastrous outcome”.

And he gives the example of his own media platform, Scoop: “Every year, Scoop also publishes close on a million New Zealand press releases issued by all and sundry. In that respect, Scoop functions as a national community noticeboard. It rejects press releases that contain libels and/or socially inflammatory hate speech. Imagine though, if Scoop was required to pre-check every one of those press releases for accuracy, balance and for whether or not they might hurt the feelings of people in public office. It would not be remotely practical or affordable for Scoop to do so – and its efforts would be gamed by those with malice in mind against the organisations issuing the press releases in question.”

Similarly, Internet NZ’s Jordan Carter suggests that relying on artificial intelligence to vet and remove content could be a problem: “Applying overly tight automated filtering would lead to very widespread overblocking. What if posting a Radio New Zealand story about the Sri Lanka attacks over the weekend on Facebook was automatically blocked? Imagine if a link to a donations site for the victims of the Christchurch attacks led to the same outcome? How about sharing a video of TV news reports on either story?”.

Carter has his own list of “six thoughts” about how to make the regulation of the internet work, including keeping the scope of the exercise narrow, and striking the right balance between “preventing the spread of such abhorrent material on the one hand, and maintaining free expression on the other” – see: How to stop the ‘Christchurch Call’ on social media and terrorism falling flat.

There really will be difficulties, no matter what approach is chosen. Claire Trevett points out: “As with climate change, making the right noises and getting the desired results are two very different things. It will be something akin to Hercules wrestling the Hydra. As soon as one head is chopped off, another two will appear” – see: PM Jacinda Ardern gathers allies to wrestle the social-media Hydra.

And it’s the politicians themselves who might have the most to lose, given their increasing preference to use Facebook and the like “to bypass the filter of the traditional media and speak directly to supporters and voters. This has some pluses for those politicians – but not necessarily for democracy. Over-reliance on social media over journalistic media allows them to escape questioning on issues they may not want to face. Macron has also come in for criticism for trying to stifle the ‘Yellow Vest’ protest use of social media. Ardern herself has been known to vote with her fingers when it comes to expressing her disapproval with certain social media platforms.”

Facebook and Instagram have been key parts of Ardern’s campaigning, and Trevett points out that “in the last election, Labour spent $475,000 on advertising on Facebook – four times as much as National – as it tried to appeal to younger voters.”

Finally, for the lighter side of the debate and some apparent irregularities in social media regulation, see Hamish McNeilly’s Gone in 20 minutes: Facebook strips student nude mag cover and Andrew Gunn’s We’re taking urgent steps to address this.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

The Christchurch terrorist attacks have led to an important debate over the degree to which New Zealand society is characterised by intolerance and discrimination. Severe racism, Islamophobia, and general xenophobia appear to be the driving forces that led to the killing of 50 Muslims in Christchurch three weeks ago. It’s important to examine whether there are any connections between this extreme intolerance and wider prejudice in New Zealand society.

There have been many personal testimonies of discrimination, and analysis, highlighting religious and racial intolerance in New Zealand. But a debate needs more than anecdotes and assertions. Rigorous evidence and analysis is also required. In this regard, Simon Chapple of Victoria University of Wellington has just released some useful analysis of survey evidence about New Zealand attitudes and experiences of discrimination.

Chapple is a veteran social science researcher, and now heads the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies in Wellington. In a summary titled “How discriminatory and intolerant are New Zealanders?”, (not yet online), he explores a range of survey evidence about people’s experience of discrimination and how much tolerance New Zealanders have for others. Chapple concludes that, although discrimination exists, particularly towards ethnic and migrant communities, its occurrence can be seen as relatively small.

Looking at details from the most recent Statistics New Zealand General Social Survey, Chapple finds that levels of people reporting discrimination are relatively low, and don’t differ markedly between different ethnic groups: “Of New Zealand Europeans, 85.4 percent report no discrimination. Rates for Pacific (80.1 percent), Maori (74.4 percent) and Asian New Zealanders (73.4 percent) are lower, but still very high.”

Overall, “most New Zealanders – 83.1 percent – report no discrimination”. But what about different types of migrants? Chapple says: “there is little difference in reported discrimination between New Zealand-born people (83.5 percent report no discrimination) and long-term migrants (83.7 percent). However, while a large majority of recent migrants (74.3 percent) also report no discrimination, the figure was smaller.”

Looking at how comfortable people say they are about living amongst people with religions or ethnicities that differ from their own, the survey is also instructive: “In terms of acceptance of religious and ethnic diversity, the vast majority of New Zealanders indicate they are comfortable or very comfortable with a neighbour with a different religion (87.4 percent), and a neighbour from a different ethnic group (88.7 percent).”

Furthermore, the survey evidence suggests that there “is no notable difference in the tolerance expressed towards religious and ethnic groups as neighbours by migrant status, main ethnic category, or region.” Also, looking at the results for people living near where the Christchurch terrorist attacks took place, Chapple concludes, “Canterbury on this evidence is not a local hot-bed of discrimination and intolerance.”

Chapple then draws attention to the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, which is run out of the University of Auckland, and is specifically interested in attitudes to Muslims, Asians and Arabs. In this, respondents are asked to indicate their feelings towards people from this group on a 1-to-7 scale, in which 1 means “no anger”, 4 means “neutral”, and 7 is “anger”. The mean average results, according to Chapple, are: Muslims 2.93; Arabs 2.85; and Asians 2.55.

Obviously, there will be different interpretation of all this data. But according to Chapple, it clearly backs up Jacinda Ardern’s post-Christchurch message of inclusion: “This is not us”.

One of her most famous statements was: “We were not a target because we are a safe harbour for those who hate. We were not chosen for this act of violence because we condone racism, because we are an enclave for extremism. We were chosen for the very fact that we are none of these things.”

However, some have strongly objected to Ardern’s “This is not us” formulation, and proposed the exact opposite: “This IS us”. This was best illustrated by cartoonist Toby Morris in a very powerful comic strip – see: This is us. The cartoon concludes with a reply, seemingly directed at the prime minister for underplaying racism and separating New Zealanders from the killer: “But when we don’t say anything, we let a vile seed grow. This bullshit idea of US and THEM. But that’s wrong. There’s only us. All of us. This is us.”

For an even stronger reaction to Ardern’s “This is not us” statement, see Sahar Ghumkhor’s The hypocrisy of New Zealand’s ‘this is not us’ claim, which is published on the Al Jazeera news website. She says, “As a Muslim who grew up in New Zealand, this statement didn’t sit well with me”, and the statement itself reflects a ‘narcissistic self-view’ that actually arises out of racism itself.

Ghumkhor argues that the terrorist was neither an aberration nor an exception from New Zealand life, but instead “an integral part of the collective ‘we’ in New Zealand”. To suggest otherwise “is plain denialism and a cowardly flight into the white liberal sanctuary of the ‘third way’ from the discomfort of reality.”

She says Ardern’s words “signal that the majority is refusing and rejecting shame, the experience of which is key in the pursuit of restorative justice.” Instead, the reality is that “rampant Islamophobia in the political scene has been amplified by equally racist media which have systematically portrayed Muslims as inherently violent and ‘backward’ and Islam as an ideology justifying violence and the subjugation of women.”

A more mainstream version of this was also put forward by historian Anne Salmond: “After this terrible tragedy, let’s be honest, for once. White supremacy is a part of us, a dark power in the land. In its soft version, it looks bland and reasonable. Eminent New Zealanders assure their fellows that Māori were ‘lucky’ to be colonised by Europeans, that te reo Māori is worthless, that tikanga Māori have nothing to teach us” – see: Racist underbelly seethes just beneath surface.

Salmond elaborates on the extent of the problem, as she sees it: “After Māori, the indigenous people of this country, this sense of white superiority spills out over ‘other’ groups – Pasifika, Asian people, and now Muslims in Christchurch. Many of these people have been sworn at, punched and jostled, treated as aliens who have no place among us. Contempt breeds contempt, and hatred can breed hatred. Sometimes they strike back, as you would expect — although more often than not, at those close at hand.”

The argument is made by a number of commentators that racism and Islamophobia has been “normalised” in New Zealand in recent years, and this has in some way enabled the terrorist to carry out the atrocities in Christchurch.

For example, according to former Race Relations Conciliator, Susan Devoy, even those people who disagreed with her own controversial campaign around how to celebrate Christmas are complicit: “If you were one of those commentators: do not write an op-ed today crying about how shocking yesterday’s murders were. Because you helped make it happen. You helped normalise hatred in our country. You helped those murderers feel that they were representing the thoughts of ordinary New Zealanders” – see: Hatred lives in New Zealand.

Monica Carrer has put forward her problem with Ardern’s statement: “The danger, however, is to dismiss the fact that we do have a problem with race, and it is deeply entrenched in our society. We cannot simply hope that it was just the act of a mad bunch of people, and that once they are caught it will all be OK. We need to do something about this, we need to address the uncomfortable everyday reality of racism. Not just the open racism that ends up in violence, but also all those invisible everyday acts that silently hurt every single day” – see: We need to address everyday reality of racism to shut down acts of terror.

Some of the strongest recent statements about the extent of racism, have come from Green Party MPs. Co-leader Marama Davidson spoke at a vigil in Auckland in the week following the killings, where a number of those attending walked out, complaining the event was more focused on racism than mourning – see Michael Neilson’s Christchurch vigil or political rally? Why some people walked out of Auckland Domain event.

According to this report, “official speakers strongly challenged the rallying cry that last week’s atrocity that killed 50 Muslim worshippers and injured dozens more was ‘not us’. Muslim and tāngata whenua speakers covered experiences of everyday racism and violence they face, and spoke to New Zealand’s white settler history and colonial violence.”

Critics of the event said that the anti-racism campaigning and general politicisation was “too soon”, which led Marama Davidson to argue it was actually “too late” to be having these conversations. Furthermore: “A lot of people wanted to separate what happened in Christchurch from politics, but if we have any hope of truly honouring those who passed we need to listen to our Muslim, Māori, Pacific and migrant communities, all saying this is not just about a violent shooter, but about everyday racism.”

Finally, for some other recent evidence about tolerance and racial attitudes, Lincoln Tan reported last month on a survey, the Perceptions of Asia and Asian Peoples from a Te Ao Māori Perspective – see: Māori feel positive about Asians, but not if they’re immigrating – study. Here’s the main findings: “Māori feel a strong cultural connection with Asia and eight in 10 have positive feelings about Asians, a new study has found. But just three in 10 welcomed Asian immigration – with 38 per cent viewing it as negative and 32 per cent neutral.”