The New Zealand Patch Ban - A Breach of Human Rights
Does the government have control over what you are allowed to wear? If you feel intimidated by clothing, is it okay to ban it from public view? What about the privacy of one's own home?
A controversial bill has been signed into New Zealand law to tackle the rise in gang-related crimes. The conversation revolves around the law's efficacy—will this reduce crime? By asking this, people are missing the forest for the trees. I don’t care if it works or not. I care about how this is a breach of human rights.
What are the laws?
This is the first time I have bothered to read a bill, if I am to have a strong opinion on this, it’s the least I could do. I’ll become the expert so you don’t have to.
This is the gist of it: You can’t wear gang patches in public, when gang members do gather in public, they can be dispersed, and the courts can issue a notice preventing certain gang members from associating with each other. The rest of the document goes through definitions, exceptions, punishments, etc., so if you’re thinking, “But what if such and such happens?” It’ll be found in the bill. You can read it here.
What’s the issue?
For those who know me personally, I am no fan of gangs. They are a net negative on society and we’d be objectively better off if they did not exist. Gang membership should be disincentivised as much as possible. However, there are moral and immoral ways to do this. Few people think executing gang members in the street is a good idea, so there must be a way to tackle this problem without infringing on human rights.
I believe this bill does exactly that. This is a breach of free speech and free expression. The government has no right to tell people what they can and cannot wear.
To begin with, there seems to be a bit of a bait-and-switch. They’re saying the reason they are targeting gangs is because of the disproportionate amount of violence they create, however, when pressed on this, they usually fall back on how their clothing is being used to intimidate people.
Let’s explore the intimidation angle.
Intimidation
Intimidation is a feeling we experience, and emotions, no matter how strong, are not always a reliable indicator of truth. Furthermore, it’s impossible to prove. If I say I feel scared of something, this cannot be verified. We need objective evidence that intimidation is the intent; otherwise, the argument seems to be: ‘If enough people say they find certain clothing intimidating, we should ban it’. This means for the first time a law is being driven by personal, subjective feelings. Not even our current laws on intimidation reflect this.
But, let’s play this out and see if we can reasonably apply this law to other situations.
Imagine a pro-Palestine protest, where some participants are wearing t-shirts saying ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free’: a popular catchphrase in the West showing support for Palestine; an advocation for genocide by Hamas.
Some Israelis may feel intimidated by this. Despite their discomfort, it is still considered free speech. Are we going to ban this clothing? Why not? Just as some people are intimidated by gangs, these Israelis feel similarly toward the protesters.
If they are banned, what other scenarios could this law be applied to? The floodgates have opened. Who gets to draw the arbitrary line in the sand and decide whether some people feeling intimidated require legal action, whereas others do not?
Or am I being dishonest here? Would the only reason we choose to ban pro-Palesinian clothing is if they started to commit more crimes? But in which case, why are we talking about intimidation in the first place? This is the bait-and-switch. We don’t ban objects because people are intimidated by them, yet 90% of the conversation is about how we should. So which is it?
Objection!
I’ll be realistic for a moment, their clothing can and is used to intimidate. Fortunately, we have laws around intimidation and being a public nuisance. Let’s enact those when necessary.
People don’t like seeing patches in public, they don’t bring anything positive to society. Well, my answer is “That’s freedom, baby”. Smoking, fast food, gambling—there are plenty of things that aren’t positive for society or we don’t like seeing, yet we allow people to partake in these activities because that’s freedom.
Another complaint I have heard while voicing my opinion on this is that it will be impossible to implement. Well, I don’t care how difficult it is to throttle human rights; it shouldn’t be put into law in the first place.
Finally, I’ve been asked why I care since it won’t affect me, along with 99% of the population. I care because human rights are for everyone, even for people I disagree with.
Sometimes I hate being principled.
It often leads to standing up for people that you loathe.
Government
The part I am most alarmed about is regarding repeat offenders.
Have a quick read of it here:
One can reasonably argue the limits of free speech should be reduced so as to not include items of clothing which is used to intimidate others. What cannot be argued with a straight face, however, is that people should go to jail because they have certain clothing in their homes. They can’t even have their patch hanging up in their wardrobe. Punishable by up to a year in jail. This is beyond absurd and a massive trampling on people’s freedoms.
This crosses the line from deterrent to unnecessary cruelty. The government has already made it clear they don’t like gang patches in public. Now, just to show us who’s boss, they’re going to charge people not only for wearing their patch in public but also for possessing it in the privacy of their own homes. This is outrageous, let alone completely ineffective.
Clothing does not cause harm and I should be able to wear whatever I like in my private residence. The government’s influence stops at my doorstep. Anything beyond that is an overreach of power.
Concerns for the Future
We have allowed the most neurotic individuals to determine the rights of others and in doing so, have laid the pipework for a future authoritarian government. Now, I don’t believe the lads in charge are secretly planning a totalitarian takeover. What I do believe has happened is they have made it slightly easier for a nefarious government to silence dissident groups and have more control over our speech—the first thing a totalitarian government always seeks to regulate.
As I said earlier, intimidation is a feeling we experience. It’s entirely subjective and virtually impossible to measure. Don’t get me wrong, I have felt intimidated by some of these guys in the past, but their existence and my feelings toward them are a problem on my end that I have to deal with. The concern for the future is when the government can say, with no proof, that people are being intimidated by a certain group, and look to punish members of this group. I think it’s unlikely this leads to an all-out authoritarian society but regardless, these laws are still a breach of human rights.
They have a right to wear what they like.