Rejecting Sedition

For many decades the crime of Sedition has remained in the statutes of the various Acts of New Zealand Parliaments dealing with criminal acts (The Crimes Act 1961 being the most recent). For those not familiar with the concept of Sedition, section 81(1) of the Crimes Act describes it as:

A seditious intention is an intention—

(e)To excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger the public safety.

As one can see, this is a fairly broad brush.

Thankfully, Sedition has been a rarely used charge in New Zealand, with the exception of some Trade Union Activists (and a certain Bishop who commented upon Irish Affairs when Ireland was still a part of Great Britain). However, in the past couple of years it has been resurrected and used twice - once to imprison a protester who rather stupidly saw fit to put an axe through the window of the Prime Minister's Electorate Office and call for acts of disobedience against the Government over a piece of contested legislation, and more recently against a pub owner who offered a petrol soaked couch as a prize for a drinking competition (couch burning being a popular pastime in his part of the country). Clearly such a law is being abused in its application, and is in need of repeal, irrespective of the issues its existence creates with established freedoms under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Thankfully the Government in an unusual fit of sanity has seen reason, and proposed an amendment to the Crimes Act to repeal the sedition laws. Having passed its first reading, the amendment is sitting at time of writing in front of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee for examination and public input. Given that these sorts of good laws don't come up so often, I thought it would be a good opportunity to make my first public submission on a matter which deserves some support to ensure that the angry old white man vote (who love the Queen and think want to go back to the days when "the Maoris knew their place...except for that Winston Peters fellow - he's a young whipper-snapper") who form the usual cohort of reactionary opposition to any form of change sway the opinions of the committee members.

My submission was short, and hopefully to the point. For the interests of vanity it is found below:

1. I support the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill.

2. The crime of Sedition is an archaic law, which I believe is clearly incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under s.14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

3. The right to freedom of expression in a democratic society should not be limited in any reasonable way, particularly not in such a way as to suppress legitimate dissent against the actions and policies of the Government of the day.

4. Where unreasonable actions or criminal behaviour are undertaken in order to express dissent, these actions should be prosecuted using the numerous alternatives available.

5. These alternatives include the statutory provisions pertaining to riot, sabotage, treason, criminal nuisance, and unlawful assembly.

6. The existence of these alternatives makes the crime of Sedition superfluous in maintaining good public order, and so the crime of Sedition cannot be justifiably retained on such a basis.

7. Therefore the only possible potential reason to retain the crime of Sedition for application is to retain the possibility of a future attempt to suppress the expression of dissent against certain policies and actions of the Government.

8. For the above reasons, I respectfully urge the Justice and Electoral Committee to support the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill, and to recommend its passage to the House.

8. I do not wish to make an oral submission before the Committee.

Ashley Clarkson 17 July 2007.