Calls for Hate Speech Laws Are Really Calls for Blasphemy Laws.
MEDIA RELEASE | 24 July 2026
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Calls for Hate Speech Laws Are Really Calls for Blasphemy Laws
AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND — PILLAR is strongly opposing renewed calls to introduce hate speech laws in New Zealand, saying the proposals are nothing more than a modern attempt to reintroduce blasphemy laws under a different name.
Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) chair Abdul Razzaq has again called for hate speech legislation, proposing definitions that would prohibit speech deemed to “vilify or promote hostility” towards individuals or communities based on their religion.
PILLAR Executive Director and spokesperson Nathan Seiuli said New Zealanders should recognise exactly what is being proposed.
“Let’s call this what it is. These are blasphemy laws dressed up in modern language.”
“No religion, ideology or belief system should be protected from criticism, ridicule, scrutiny or robust public debate. In a free society, ideas don’t have rights. People do.”
Seiuli said New Zealand has already rejected hate speech laws multiple times, with successive governments backing away from proposals after overwhelming public opposition.
“New Zealanders have consistently made their position clear. We do not want the government deciding which opinions are acceptable and which are criminal.”
“Freedom of expression is not a privilege granted by politicians. It is a fundamental right that underpins every other freedom we enjoy.”
PILLAR warned that hate speech laws inevitably expand beyond their original intent, creating uncertainty about what people can say and encouraging political censorship.
“Around the world we’ve seen these laws weaponised against political opponents, religious minorities, journalists, activists and ordinary citizens. Once government gains the power to police opinions, that power never remains narrowly confined.”
Seiuli said while genuine threats, harassment and incitement to violence are already illegal under New Zealand law, criminalising offensive or controversial opinions crosses a dangerous constitutional line.
“If someone threatens violence, prosecute them. If someone commits harassment, prosecute them. But don’t criminalise peaceful speech simply because somebody finds it offensive.”
“The answer to bad ideas has never been government censorship. The answer is better ideas, open debate and the freedom to challenge one another.”
Seiuli said renewed calls for hate speech laws reinforce why organisations like PILLAR exist.
“If organisations like PILLAR don’t occupy the public square defending liberty, someone else will occupy it arguing for censorship.”
“History is littered with examples of governments restricting speech in the name of safety, harmony or public order. Those restrictions rarely remain limited, and they almost always come at the expense of individual liberty.”
“New Zealand does not need hate speech laws. It does not need blasphemy laws. It needs the courage to defend freedom of speech, especially when that speech is unpopular.”
ENDS