Why? because Australia and NZ have large immigrant populations (in fact, are large immigrant populations) that contain many races. Racial disharmony causes huge problems, and creates the real possibility of violence, mayhem and bloodshed. As reasonable societies, these things are seen as bad and to be avoided. Consequently, actions that will create racial disharmony are illegal.

You can hate on whoever you like, but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do. I don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty benign restriction to me...

> but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do

Your example is a misdirection. What you describe is being a public nuisance in a public area, not free speech. I don't want to be subjected to nasty, racist rhetoric in a public space, just as I don't want to be harangued to repent of my sins and "Let Jesus into my life" in the same place. But I support the right of people to be able to express these views in a published form, or in closed spaces such as on a talking tour or in a church. In both cases audiences are seeking to be exposed to these views and are actively going to a place to find them, not having them pushed on them as they go about their ordinary lives.

> In both cases audiences are seeking to be exposed to these views

If people only hear what they want to hear then issues will never be resolved. It’s necessary to hear things sometimes, even if it’s personally revolting or bothersome. Everyone has to deal with annoying people in life and laws won’t fix it.

>You can hate on whoever you like, but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do. I don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty benign restriction to me...

Where do you draw the line? All of the items in this list (going from least inflammatory to most) could possibly be construed as causing "racial disharmony":

"We shouldn't give special benefits to [minority group] (eg. affirmative action)"

"[minority group] commit x% more crime than the rest of the population" (factual)

"I personally don't like [minority group]"

"We should enact legislation that specifically penalize [minority group]"

"I wish [minority group] would die/get hurt"

"We need to kill/hurt [minority group]"

"Let's go kill/hurt [minority group]"

For reference, the US criteria is somewhere between the last two (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger).

NZ has a large immigrant population? Compared to what, exactly? The country has 5 million people. The _county_ that I live in has (damn near) that many people.

> Also, why are people allowed to loudly proclaim "white people are evil" loudly, and broadly, without issues

Source? And I don’t mean calling the individual(s) in this case evil – which they are practically by definition – I mean broadly painting “white people” as being evil.

Edit: any explanation for the downvote? Maybe the list was overkill, but I was responding to someone who accused another of being 'disingenuous, ignorant, or lazy', then presented very weak evidence for a claim that was supposed to be so obvious that questioning it justified those insults. (Basically no evidence at all, since it had nothing to do with New Zealand, the country which this discussion was specifically about)

Original:

When I looked at the top 20 results, they didn't back up your point very well. (I didn't do any cherrypicking -- I don't know what the 21st result was. If I wanted to be sneaky I would have only presented the first 10.)

I counted four people actually making that claim (one of whom qualified it with 'sometimes', but generalised it with 'all'). None of the four seemed to be from New Zealand.

The rest were mostly complaints about other people who supposedly think or say white people are evil. Some were definitely right-wing extremists.

The full list was:

- 'sometimes all white people are evil'

- complaint about white people being blamed for things and called evil

- anti-semite complaining about a Jewish man calling himself white

- someone saying "not all white people are evil, judge people by their character not their skin color"

- white supremacist

- person complaining about white people being called evil

- 'There’s still evil white people in the world, and we all know about the history between us and them, but y’all need to stop acting like EVERY white person is evil bruh. The people that do are a part of the problem too.'

- 'While Candace Owens can't believe this she is letting white conservatives at #CPAC believe this is true. This emboldens their view that the real victim of racism in America is white people. These words by Owens are beyond irresponsible-they are truly evil. '

- someone disagreeing with the view that 'Hitler is only considered to be evil because he killed white people'

- anti-semite

- person complaining about 'assholes ranting about how white people are evil'

- description of Jordan Peele's movie as 'the white people are evil movie'

- person saying it unironically

- person saying it unironically

- person complainiing about people who think that Democrats 'hate "white" people'

- complaint about people who say white people are evil

- ALL CAPS POST COMPLAINING ABOUT RACISM AGAINST WHITES

- 'These fucks here and people like these give white people a horrible rep. Can’t generalize a whole race like that tho.'

- person saying it unironically

- ' seeing conventionally attractive white people having excuses made for their evil actions is irritating AF'

The point wasn't to say that the percentage of X posts to Y posts was Z%. The point was to say that these posts and sentiments exist and here is a way to find some almost guaranteed with one simple search; i.e. it's not hard to find this sentiment around the internet.

If you've lived at any point in a social circle that involved wholeness you will see this sentiment displayed and defended. The whole idea of racism in critical theory is a defense of racism against white people by saying that it's not actually racism, which is a dog whistle, as they put it, to those outside of academia, giving them the go ahead to express such racist sentiments in the colloquial sense.

I'm saying all of this as a liberal who is against hatred and bigotry of any form, and as someone who at one point used to echo such white woke SJW sentiments without realizing that I was trying to find acceptance among my woke friends. I know what these circles are like; you almost certainly are being dishonest if you travel in these circles and say you haven't heard these sentiments.

What does this have to do with New Zealand?

What does new zealand have to do with my addressing the parent comment to my original comment? My point was directly relevant to that comment and it's sad that someone flagged it.

"Racial disharmony" is clearly the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. Of course you can legislate against racial disharmony: in the US, race is a protected class.

Is proclaiming "white people are evil" racial disharmony? Depends on the context. Is proclaiming "Muslims are evil" and shooting up two mosques racial disharmony? Definitely.

Your last paragraph shows the entire problem with this concept.

Whiteness is definitely a race. Thus saying "white people are evil" would seem to satisfy any definition of racial disharmony - how can it possibly depend on context? You appear to just be proving the original posters point that these laws are never actually enforced fairly: white people get targeted by hate all the time and the authorities don't care.

But Islam is not a race. There are white Muslims. Thus whatever hatred of Muslims is, it's not racism.

People routinely lump religious hatred under the rubric of "racism" partly because that word has been granted extraordinary power in our society, partly because there isn't a nice short word for "discrimination against certain religions" and partly because Muslim people tend to overwhelmingly come from certain parts of the world originally.

But regardless of why people do it, no logical definition of racial disharmony could cover shooting up a mosque. You'd need some other type of crime for that to be logically applicable. Or you'd need to define in law that Islam is a "race" you can opt in and out of at will.

>Also, why are people allowed to loudly proclaim "white people are evil" loudly, and broadly, without issues

Because, this far, your point is pure whataboutism decrying an issue that doesn’t exist.

Come back with this argument when someone walks into a church/mosque and mows down dozens of people. Comparing a few trolls crying on twitter that “white people are evil” to Charleston or Christchurch is asinine