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

As protests in Iran drag on into their fourth week over the violent death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman, there are two central questions.

The first is whether these protests involving women and girls across Iran are different from upheavals in the past, or will simply end the same way with the regime stifling a popular uprising.

The second question is what can, and should, the outside world do about extraordinarily brave demonstrations against an ageing and ruthless regime that has shown itself to be unwilling, and possibly unable, to allow greater freedoms?

The symbolic issue for Iran’s protest movement is a requirement, imposed by morality police, that women and girls wear the hijab, or headscarf. In reality, these protests are the result of a much wider revolt against discrimination and prejudice.

Put simply, women are fed up with a regime that has sought to impose rigid rules on what is, and is not, permissible for women in a theocratic society whose guidelines are little changed since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.

Women are serving multi-year jail sentences for simply refusing to wear the hijab.

Two other issues are also at play. One is the economic deprivation suffered by Iranians under the weight of persistent sanctions, rampant inflation and the continuing catastrophic decline in the value of the Iranian riyal.

The other issue is the fact Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old whose death sparked the protests, was a Kurd.

The Kurds, who constitute about 10 percent of Iran’s 84 million population, feel themselves to be a persecuted minority. Tensions between the central government in Tehran and Kurds in their homeland on the boundaries of Iraq, Syria and Turkey are endemic.

A BBC report  on the Mahsa Amini protests.

Another important question is where all this leaves negotiations on the revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The JCPOA had been aimed at freezing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

Former President Donald Trump recklessly abandoned the 2015 agreement in 2018.

The Biden administration, along with its United Nations Security Council partners plus Germany, had been making progress in those negotiations, but those efforts are now stalled, if not frozen.

The spectacle of Iranian security forces violently putting down demonstrations in cities, towns and villages across Iran will make it virtually impossible in the short term for the US and its negotiating partners to negotiate a revised JCPOA with Tehran.

Russia’s use of Iranian-supplied “kamikaze” drones against Ukrainian targets will have further soured the atmosphere.

How will the US and its allies respond?
So will the US and its allies continue to tighten Iranian sanctions? And to what extent will the West seek to encourage and support protesters on the ground in Iran?

One initiative that is already underway is helping the protest movement to circumvent regime attempts to shut down electronic communications.

Elon Musk has announced he is activating his Starlink satellites to provide a vehicle for social media communications in Iran. Musk did the same thing in Ukraine to get around Russian attempts to shut down Ukrainian communications by taking out a European satellite system.

However, amid the spectacle of women and girls being shot and tear-gassed on Iranian streets, the moral dilemma for the outside world is this: how far the West is prepared to go in its backing for the protesters.

It is one thing to express sympathy; it is another to take concrete steps to support the widespread agitation. This was also the conundrum during the Arab Spring of 2010 that brought down regimes in US-friendly countries like Egypt and Tunisia.

It should not be forgotten, in light of contemporary events, that Iran and Russia propped up Syria’s Assad regime during the Arab Spring, saving it from a near certain end.

In this latest period, the Middle East may not be on fire, as it was a decade or so ago, but it remains highly unstable. Iran’s neighbour, Iraq, is effectively without a government after months of violent agitation.

The war in Yemen is threatening to spark up again, adding to uncertainties in the Gulf.

In a geopolitical sense, Washington has to reckon with inroads Moscow has been making in relations with Gulf States, including, notably Saudi Arabia.

The recent OPEC Plus decision to limit oil production constituted a slap to the US ahead of the mid-term elections in which fuel prices will be a potent issue.

In other words, Washington’s ability to influence events in the Middle East is eroding, partly as a consequence of a disastrous attempt to remake the region by going to war in Iraq in 2003.

A volatile region
Among the consequences of that misjudgement is the empowerment of Iran in conjunction with a Shia majority in Iraq. This should have been foreseen.

So quite apart from the waves of protest in Iran, the region is a tinderbox with multiple unresolved conflicts.

In Afghanistan, on the fringes of the Middle East, women protesters have taken the lead in recent days from their Iranian sisters and have been protesting against conservative dress codes and limitations on access to education under the Taliban.

This returns us to the moral issue of the extent to which the outside world should support the protests. In this, the experience of the “green” rebellion of 2009 on Iran’s streets is relevant.

Then, the Obama administration, after initially giving encouragement to the demonstrations, pulled back on the grounds it did not wish to jeopardise negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran or undermine the protests by attaching US support.

Officials involved in the administration, who are now back in the Biden White House, believe that approach was a mistake. However, that begs the question as to what practically the US and its allies can do to stop Iran’s assault on its own women and girls.

What if, as a consequence of Western encouragement to the demonstrators, many hundreds more die or are incarcerated?

What is the end result, beyond indulging in the usual rhetorical exercises such as expressing “concern” and threatening to ramp up sanctions that hurt individual Iranians more than the regime itself?

The bottom line is that irrespective of what might be the desired outcome, Iran’s regime is unlikely to crumble.

It might be shaken, it might entertain concerns that its own revolution that replaced the Shah is in danger of being replicated, but it would be naïve to believe that a rotting 43-year-old edifice would be anything but utterly ruthless in putting an end to the demonstrations.

This includes unrest in the oil industry, in which workers are expressing solidarity with the demonstrators. The oil worker protest will be concerning the regime, given the centrality of oil production to Iran’s economy.

However, a powerful women’s movement has been unleashed in Iran. Over time, this movement may well force a theocratic regime to loosen restrictions on women and their participation in the political life of the country. That is the hope, but as history has shown, a ruthless regime will stop at little to re-assert its control.

Dr Tony Walker is a vice-chancellor’s fellow, La Trobe University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Television New Zealand Breakfast host John Campbell has highlighted the essential work that translators and interpreters do.

Associate Professor Ineke Crezee and Auckland University of Technology (AUT) interpreting graduate Dr Mustafa Derbashi were interviewed on Breakfast on International Translation Day, September 30, to help raise awareness of the profession.

“Translators are vital to helping minority communities get equal access to public services, like courts, like doctors, like government assistance,” Campbell said.

Associate Professor Crezee told Campbell that being an interpreter was about being “somebody’s voice”.

“And you have to be humble, because you cannot drown out their voice. You have to represent it as it is,” she said.

Dr Derbashi interpreted for victims at the sentencing for the Christchurch mosque attack terrorist at the High Court in Christchurch in August.

He said that when he came to New Zealand in 2001 he could not speak a word of English.

Prior to that he grew up for 29 years in a United Nations refugee camp in Jordan, which was when he made the decision to help others.

“This profession just makes me really feel privileged, because I have to professional, to be impartial, and to help people to be understood as they are.”

The Pacific Media Centre collaborates with other AUT news sources.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Up to 193 million eligible voters in Indonesia will go to the polls today, in what will be the world’s largest single-day election.

The election will see incumbent president Joko “Jokowi” Widodo go head-to-head with Prabowo Subianto, a former general in the Indonesian armed forces who lost to Jokowi in 2014.

This election is also significant as for the first time in Indonesia’s history, the presidential and legislative elections will be held on the same day.

READ MORE: Indonesia’s political system has ‘failed’ its minorities – like West Papuans

Why should New Zealand care? We put the question to some Indonesia experts…

Lester Finch, Director, AUT Indonesia Centre:
“Which country is New Zealand’s most disregarded Pacific neighbour? An archipelago of 17,000 islands, more than 300 languages spoken and 260 million people. Yes, it’s Indonesia.

“This large country is full of economic and social development opportunities for entrepreneurial Kiwis yet we don’t know what’s going on there. Many don’t know that the presidential elections are to be held this month and the outcome of those elections will have an impact on New Zealand.

“Indonesian language is a doorway to the culture. Australia has around 20 institutions teaching the Indonesian language while New Zealand has just one. Why? We just haven’t yet realised the opportunities Indonesia has for us.

“Indonesia is an exciting country with fine traditions and culture, especially its vibrant music and dance. Let’s pay some attention and step out of our comfort zone to get to know wonderful Indonesia and find out about the two individuals vying for the presidency.”

Natasha Hamilton-Hart, Director, New Zealand Asia Institute:
“For New Zealand, the election carries two major points of relevance. First, there are the implications for Indonesia’s future trajectory with regard to human rights and civic freedoms. While neither candidate is a liberal democrat, Prabowo’s platform, history and allies clearly speak to a greater willingness to espouse illiberal limits on individual and minority freedoms.

“Second, there are implications for Indonesia’s trade policy. Both candidates endorse strongly nationalist programmes, including a policy of self-sufficiency in food – which directly impinges on New Zealand’s export prospects in key products, including meat and dairy.

“There is at least a rhetorical difference, however. In the campaign, Prabowo has strongly criticised rising food imports in 2018, leaving Jokowi to defend these imports as necessary to maintain food price stability.

“Jokowi’s administration has been forced to allow these import increases despite an underlying commitment to an ostensibly pro-farmer self-sufficiency strategy. Imports have risen when food prices spiked, but the longer term strategy is likely to be here to stay.”

Sharyn Graham Davies, Associate Professor of Social Sciences at Auckland University of Technology:
“Given New Zealand’s recent overwhelming support of its Muslim community, including women donning the head scarf on the Friday following the Christchurch massacre, it is a shame that New Zealand will not find a kindred spirit in the next president of Indonesia.

“Both of the front-runners have poor track records when it comes to human rights. New Zealand rightly finds it difficult to ignore human rights abuses on the diplomatic stage.

“While the incumbent, Jokowi, is perhaps not malevolent, he has done little to support women or the LGBT community since his election in 2014. While Jokowi’s lacklustre presidency may not be a huge cause for concern, his appointment of vice-presidential candidate, Ma’ruf Amin, is an ultra-conservative Islamic hardliner who thinks Indonesia should be cleansed of its LGBT community.

“Distressingly, though, the Jokowi-Ma’ruf ticket almost looks almost benign compared to the other front-runner, Prabowo. Having married the daughter of former authoritarian ruler Suharto, Prabowo is implicated in a number of mass murders.

“New Zealand needs to pay attention to the upcoming Indonesian election to get to grips with how it will deal with our most populous neighbour when further human rights abuses occur.”

Indi Soemardjan, Chairman of the New Zealand-Indonesia Friendship Council:
“New Zealanders can start looking at the size of this election. There will be 800,000 polling stations, six million election workers, and the most complicated single-day ballot in global history.

“Altogether, there are more than 245,000 candidates running for more than 20,000 national and local legislative seats across hundreds of islands, in addition to the headline presidential contest.

“Paper ballots and nails are simply the method. No electronic nor digital ballots used.

“Unfortunately, this has also been considered the most divisive presidential election in Indonesia due to the fact that both candidates have effectively used social media channels (and millions of chat/WhatsApp groups) to create public opinion regarding their ‘ideological differences’, if any.”

Dewi Fortuna Anwar, Research Professor, Indonesia Institute of Sciences:
“With its population of over 260 million people, its strategic location at the crossroads between the Indian and Pacific Oceans and between Asia and Australia and its dynamic economy, Indonesia is the largest member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and plays a pivotal role in promoting regional peace, stability and prosperity.

“Indonesia is also the world’s largest Muslim nation, the world’s third largest democracy as well as a member of the G20. Indonesia prides itself as a country where Islam, democracy, modernity and women empowerment walk hand-in hand.

“Indonesia’s legislative and presidential elections serve to affirm its identity as a vibrant democracy, while at the same time the rise in identity politics and the proliferation of fake news have become serious concerns as both can undermine democracy. The results of Indonesia’s elections are clearly of interest to Indonesia’s neighbours, including New Zealand, as they will determine the direction that Indonesia will take in the next five years.”

Chris Naziris, lawyer at MKK Jakarta and Wellington:
“The 2019 election will be defined by competing populist policies, economic nationalism and rising religious conservatism. These could significantly impact New Zealand’s $1 billion worth of exports, the security of the region and the safety of New Zealanders.

“Indonesia has been a pluralistic and largely tolerant nation but continued low mineral prices (Indonesia’s extractive economy mirrors Australia’s) and increasingly ineffective nationalistic economic policies have failed to lift millions out of extreme poverty.

“This has led to frustration and resentment among many, especially outside Jakarta. In a time of growing US-China tensions, BREXIT, and European economic stagnation, the stability of Indonesia, as the largest economy in Southeast Asia is vital to New Zealand.”

Siah Hwee Ang, Chair in Business in Asia:
“Indonesia is a close neighbour to New Zealand and its economic ties with New Zealand have strengthened in the last couple of years. Indonesia’s trade and investment policies might adjust depending on the outcomes of the coming election.

“This will have an impact on New Zealand businesses either currently trading with our Southeast Asia neighbour or those with the market in sight.

“Even intermediaries that engage with Indonesian counterparts will have to keep themselves abreast of the potential change in political and business climate in Indonesia. More broadly, Indonesia’s election will have ramifications for ASEAN as a whole and the wider Asia-Pacific, which New Zealand is a part of.

“There will be ripple effects on trade and investment fronts, even if trade agreements may have ring-fenced some of these potential effects. Overall, clearly the election in the largest economy in ASEAN would have both direct and indirect effects on business engagements with the country and the wider context of the Asia-Pacific.”

Compiled by the Asia New Zealand Foundation’s Asia Media Centre.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Dr Christina Ho in Sydney

Half of all race-related opinion pieces in the Australian mainstream media are likely to contravene industry codes of conduct on racism.

In research released this week, the Who Watches the Media report found that of 124 race-related opinion pieces published between January and July this year, 62 were potentially in breach of one or more industry codes of conduct, because of racist content.

Despite multiple industry codes of conduct stipulating fair race-related reporting, racist reporting is a weekly phenomenon in Australia’s mainstream media.

We define racism as unjust covert or overt behaviour towards a person or a group on the basis of their racial background. This might be perpetrated by a person, a group, an organisation, or a system.

The research, conducted by not-for-profit group All Together Now and the University of Technology Sydney, focused on opinion-based pieces in the eight Australian newspapers and current affairs programmes with the largest audiences, as determined by ratings agencies.

We found that negative race-related reports were most commonly published in News Corp publications. The Daily Telegraph, The Australian and Herald Sun were responsible for the most negative pieces in the press. A Current Affair was the most negative among the broadcast media.

-Partners-

Chart 1: Number of race-related stories by outlet and type of reporting. Source: Author

Muslims were mentioned in more than half of the opinion pieces, and more than twice as many times as any other single group mentioned (see chart 2).

Chart 2: Number of race-related stories by outlet and ethnic minority group. Source: Author

Portrayed more negatively
Muslims were portrayed more negatively than the other minority groups, with 63 percent of reports about Muslims framed negatively. These pieces often conflated Muslims with terrorism. For example, reports used terrorist attacks in the UK to question accepting Muslim refugees and immigrants to Australia.

This was a recurring theme in race-based opinion pieces over the study period. In contrast, there were more positive than negative stories about Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders.

Chart 3: Number of stories by ethnic minority group and type of reporting. Source: Author

Negative commentary about minority groups has lasting impacts in the community. An op-ed in The New York Times recently highlighted the impact that racism in the media has on individuals. It explained:

…racism doesn’t have to be experienced in person to affect our health — taking it in the form of news coverage is likely to have similar effects.

The noted effects include elevated blood pressure, long after television scenes are over. Racism is literally making us sick.

Note also that given the lack of cultural diversity among opinion-makers, particularly on television, social commentators are largely talking about groups to which they do not belong. According to the 2016-20 PwC Media Outlook report, the average media employee is 27, Caucasian and male, which does not reflect the current population diversity of Australia.

This creates a strong argument for increasing the cultural diversity of all media agencies to help minimise the number of individuals or groups being negatively depicted in race-related reports.

Our research echoes the findings of the UN expert panel on racial discrimination, which reported last week that racist media debate was on the rise in Australia. The UN recommended the Australian media “put an end to racist hate speech” in print and online, and adopt a “code of good conduct” with provisions to ban racism.

Urgent recommendations
Our report makes urgent recommendations to strengthen media regulations in relation to race-based reporting, to support journalists to discuss race sensitively, and to continue media monitoring.

While media regulations enable audiences to make complaints about racism in the media, under some codes, audiences have only 30 days to do so. The research report recommends that this deadline be removed to allow audiences to make complaints about racist media content at any time.

It also calls for the definition of racism be broadened in the codes of conduct to include covert forms of racism. Covert racism includes subtle stereotyping, such as the repeated depiction of Muslim women with dark veils, implying secrecy and provoking suspicion.

News agencies need to do more to help journalists address race issues responsibly. They can do this by providing training, recruiting more journalists of colour, and ensuring that their editorial policies are racially aware.

The media are meant to hold up a mirror to society. When it comes to race-related reporting, we need a more accurate portrayal of the successes of Australian multiculturalism.

Dr Christina Ho is senior lecturer and discipline coordinator in Social and Political Sciences, University of Technology Sydney. Priscilla Brice and Deliana Iacoban from All Together Now, a not-for-profit group working to combat racism, also contributed to this article. Republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Video and images by the Pacific Media Centre’s Del Abcede. Video: Café Pacific

More than 2000 people have taken part in a colourful and vibrant  “Aotearoa Against Muslim Ban” march in New Zealand’s largest city to condemn the “racist and Islamophobic” immigration bans ordered by US President Trump.

The protest rally was held in Auckland’s Aotea Square yesterday in solidarity with those affected by President Trump’s executive orders to implement a 90-day ban on people from seven Muslim majority countries and 120 day ban on all refugees, with an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

The Aotearoa Against Muslim Ban coalition condemned the US bans ordered by Trump.

“These border policies are racist, Islamophobic and unacceptable,” said Mehwish, one of the organisers of the “No Ban, No Wall” protest.

“They continue a pattern of white supremacist immigration exclusion in colonial settler countries like the United States. Bill English refusing to call it for what it is – racist – is a dangerously weak response and doesn’t represent the people of Aotearoa.

“Globally, there is an increase in Islamophobia that marginalises and advocates violence against Muslim communities.

‘Scary step towards facism’
Fahad, another organiser of the protest, said: “Singling out Muslims and people from specific Muslim-majority countries is a scary step towards fascism.”

Another organiser, Nisha, said: “We should not see the executive orders in isolation. Deportations and immigration restrictions have been in place for years.

“Rather than seeing Trump as an exception to the rule, we need to question the political and systematic racism that treats minorities, people of colour and immigrants as the ‘dangerous others’.”

Aotearoa Against Muslim Ban calls for the New Zealand government to increase the refugee quota, oppose and divest from wars in the Middle East, provide adequate resources for migrant and refugee communities and condemn these racist and Islamophobic immigration bans.