Should the TDC ban preaching outside the Museum?

August 27th, 2010
William Cleaver

Recent article in the Motueka news suggests that the TDC is considering the Museum as a no preaching zone. It is suggested before the council goes down that track that they refer to the New Zealand Human Rights act 1990 under section 14. It states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." And for the council not to allow access could fall under the Act.

"Access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities:
(1) Every person commits an offence who-
(a) Refuses to allow any other person access to or use of any place or vehicle which members of the public are entitled or allowed to enter or use; or
(b) Refuses any other person the use of any facilities in that place or vehicle which are available to members of the public; or
(c) Requires any other person to leave or to cease to use that place or vehicle or those facilities, when that refusal or requirement is in breach of any of the provisions of Part 2 of this Act.
(2) Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000."

Food for thought.

Comment by Chris Salt:
[Posted 29 August 2010]

I read the piece about 'controlling' the public space outside the museum (M-G Bay News Aug 26/2010) with dismay. A cornerstone element to our culture is free speech. Personally, I find soapboxing entertaining. If we have to march over people's free will, just so someone else can eat a sammie in silence (impossible on High St anyway), we really have come to a sorry pass. In any event I would imagine such regulation over people, apart from setting a dangerous precedent, probably falls foul of human rights legislation. How could it be enforced in any event?

The belief political and religious speaking should be banned is brown shirt and jack boots stuff. Politics and religion covers areas dear to the hearts of many New Zealanders. Heck, they are the only two subjects worth talking about! To ban them in a public space flies in the face of all those who died to preserve rights to free thought, expression and demonstration. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I've got a good idea, why don't we brighten up what is a very dull space in front of the museum by having a 'speakers corner' once a week - like Hyde Park corner. I'll build 4-6 soap boxes. In London it is Sunday afternoon, but how about a lunch time when lots of people are around. Then you concentrate all the preaching and speeching into one period.

Further comment by Chris Salt:
[Posted 29 August 2010]

William is right with regard to legislation on free speech, but the Act is wrong. It is actually Section 14 of the 1990 Bill of Rights Act which says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." Section 15 says much the same about freedom of religion.

The Human Rights Act 1993 also has provisions against forms of discrimination.

Section 21: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religious, ethical or political belief.

Section 65: Indirect discrimination - Where any conduct, practice, requirement, or condition that is not apparently in contravention of any provision of this Part of this Act has the effect of treating a person or group of persons differently on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in a situation where such treatment would be unlawful under any provision of this Part of this Act other than this section, that conduct, practice, condition, or requirement shall be unlawful under that provision unless the person whose conduct or practice is in issue, or who imposes the condition or requirement, establishes good reason for it.

In this case there are no good grounds for discrimination, only grounds of convenience. If someone is playing up and annoying people in the Museum park area the proper recourse is to the police re disorderly behaviour.

Section 42: Access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person-
(a) To refuse to allow any other person access to or use of any place or vehicle which members of the public are entitled or allowed to enter or use; or
(b) To refuse any other person the use of any facilities in that place or vehicle which are available to members of the public; or
(c) To require any other person to leave or cease to use that place or vehicle or those facilities,- by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

If the Council and Community Board persist in this effort to limit free speech they will be buying a fight with the Human Rights Commissioner.

Comment by David Ogilvie (Chair Motueka Community Board):
[Posted 29 August 2010]

Thanks for the comments - really good. Certainly hope that there are others, either for or against. The discussion on the frontage policy at the Community Board's meeting (Sept 14th) will be interesting. Is there support for the "Hyde Park" idea that Chris & Liz expounded?

Comment by Liz Salt:
[Posted 29 August 2010]

I can not help but wonder who in the Council is pushing the idea mooted recently to ban political and religious speaking outside the museum and what their real agenda is (M-G Bay News Aug 26/2010). Firstly this is a public space and therefore already well protected by numerous laws concerning what New Zealand society regards as appropriate public behaviour.

Secondly, if this Council irritation comes to pass, what is to stop it from adding other groups at whim to its 'banned' list? Perhaps they might target our much valued NZ Fire Service, as, some months ago, they gave an excellent demonstration regarding the risk of kichen fires from unwatched food cooking on stoves - but all that smoke from their demonstrations might give a Council member a carbon credit-induced heart palpitation. Dear oh dear, can't have that - let's ban the Fire Service, they could splutter. So, I ask, just who is pushing this idea and what is their real reason for doing so? Yet again our Council seems to be fiddling with silly sideline issues.

Comment by Tara Forde:
[Posted 30 August 2010]

I am concerned at the proposed Museum Frontage policy. This policy is not an open or transparent process. Whilst it is fine for groups who are clearly not religious or political - for those of us involved in many facets of our community this is a concern.

I personally disagree with not allowing political or religious groups to canvas and discuss their viewpoints. I can understand the concerns of some not wanting to be accosted, I believe that this would be covered if people had a Hawkers License which covers behaviour style. Instead, it would seem to be more the content that might offend people. However, we do live in a democracy - where as long as views as put in a respectful manner then we should be open minded enough to discuss.

I also have concerns about the process - if someone objects then where are they to turn? What public consultation has council proposed for this issue? Although the Museum and its concerns are of course important, for the community to get maximum value for the space, we need broader input.

The land should be a community hub, where people can congregrate and discuss issues that are important to them. I like the speakers corner idea, and would love to get up on a soapbox about it.

Comment by Ron Sharpe:
[Posted 31 August 2010]

If we follow the logic of TDC in banning political and religious public platforms, Bob Dylan, Dave Dobbyn, John Clark (aka Fred Dagg), Gary McCormack, David McPhail, Radio NZ National's political comments, radio talkback etc etc would have to be banned too. What a dull society and town!

Comment by Duncan Eddy:
[Posted 1 September 2010]

The proposed policy arose from talks between Motueka Museum management and Mike Tasman Jones of TDC. The motivation behind the proposed policy were concerns about people using the space as a 'market-space', and, I believe, drummers from the peace tree walk who held a free performance outside the museum which annoyed the curator.

I believe the proposed policy is draconian and unworkable, and have expressed my concerns about it on a number of occasions. A realistic and fair policy might be something along the lines of "Anyone seeking to use the space for commercial profit must first seek the written approval of Museum management and offer a suitable donation to the Museum for use of the space".

Comment by William Cleaver:
[Posted 2 September 2010]

If we live and work in the public eye and share the same space we must accept what comes to us. Seeking to have New Zealand laws twisted to satisfy a minority is rather out there. Outside the Museum is a public space, well would seem to be. Any form of soap boxing, performances or public events has to accepted by all those living and working in the area. If such events become unruly then we have bodies that deal with these things on a legal precedence.

I would imagine Duncan's suggestion of going to the museum curator would be a waste of time as they would probably say no to any event considering they are the ones that started this ball rolling in the first place. The land on the left of the Museum under he tree is part of Parkland School, so I believe. When Led Zeppelin come to town maybe a outdoor concert there would be great. I'm sure the school would love to benifit from the funds.

Comment by Liz Salt:
[Posted 11 September 2010]

I applaud the comments made by others on this thread. Duncan Eddy has a good point, as does Tara. I would take issue with her comment that we live in a democracy. We need to qualify that sentiment. We certainly live in a representative democracy but we still fall well short of full democracy. The fact that an unelected official would propose a ban on free speech, in a public space and there is no recourse by the community to a means of saying yea of nay, demonstrates that our democracy is thread bare. Have a look at a new site on this subject - www.realdemocracy.co.nz

Editor's Comment:
[Posted 17 September 2010]

Further information on this controversy can be found in the News section at this page »

Comment by Tara Forde:
[Posted 22 September 2010]

Can you please post this link up on the musuem preaching thread: ().
It is Sen. Ted Kennedy at Liberty University, 1983, on the separation of church and state. David Ogilvie told me about the speech, and through Youtube I was able to track it down!

>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]

[ Return ]