WLA

31 July 2023

Submission to the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms Consultation

Women’s Liberation Aotearoa:  July 2023

Women’s Liberation Aotearoa recognises and acknowledges Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand. We aim to uphold the spirit of Tino Rangatiratanga and act in accordance with that aim in all our affairs. In particular, we uphold Mana Wahine.

Our Principles[1]

WLA believes all women must be :

1. able to fully and freely participate in all avenues of life, political organising and decision making;
2. guaranteed full pay equity, i.e. equal pay plus effective engagement with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value;
3. economically independent through the mechanisms of a guaranteed living income and a raft of social support systems which reflect the value, to the wider economy, of domestic work and child care;
4. free from all forms of patriarchal control;
5. free from all forms of racism and associated unfair / unlawful discrimination;
6. guaranteed the right of reproductive sovereignty;
7. free from both the threat and fact of all forms of violence in the home, the workplace and in public, including physical violence, rape, sexual abuse, and emotional and psychological abuse;
8. free to gather and to organise in sex-segregated spaces;
9. free to express and assert same sex attraction without facing any forms of discrimination or harassment;
10. free from prostitution, pornography, trafficking and all forms of commercial sexual exploitation, which children must be free from too;
11. able to ensure they and their children have access to factual, unbiased information about such issues as medical consent, biological sex and the social construction of gender.

In this submission, we will focus on the impact of misogyny and sex-based abuse and threats towards women, as well as the failure of the NZ media to represent the views of gender critical women and groups adequately and fairly, thereby inciting threats, verbal abuse, misinformation and physical aggression towards women.

Female sex-based rights

WLA agrees with statements in the Safer Online Services and Media proposal about the dangerous threats and abuse women get on social media. We have serious concerns about the many years of attempts to silence women who speak on and offline in support of sex-based rights, services and protections for women and girls. Such rights are protected in the NZ Human Rights Act (e.g., ss 21.1; 27; 43; 45; 46; 47; 55; 58), and in international agreements that the NZ government has ratified, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 2), and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Kate Hannah, director of NZ’s Disinformation Project, is correct in her Spin Off article[2] where she outlines some of the experiences of women being silenced, via threats of violence made online.  WLA disagrees with her calling it ‘gender-based violence’ and uncritically incorporating LGBT+ and gender minorities into it. All people who are LGB, as well as those who do not conform to socially constructed gender norms, including trans identified people, should be protected from discrimination, abuse, and violence.  However, it is important to differentiate between discrimination and abuse towards women on the basis of our sex, and that which targets trans identified males (i.e., males who identify as transwomen, non-binary or gender fluid), because they can be very different in nature.  Abuse of a feminine, androgynous, or trans identified male and that targeting masculine, androgynous or trans identified females can be different.

Some transactivists and/or their allies have directed death, rape, and other threats of violence towards females advocating for our sex-based rights on and offline[3].  Males, whether or not they are trans identified are, more of a physical threat to all women than vice versa because males, regardless of hormones, surgery, or mode of personal presentation, tend to be much stronger than females.

There are glaring omissions and misinformation, in the way Hannah and the Disinformation Project do not differentiate between sex-based verbal abuse & violence, including that from trans activists and allies towards those advocating for women’s sex-based rights, and the abuse dished out to trans identified and gender non-conforming people.

This article [4]sets out our view on the difference between sex and gender in contrast to Hannah’s blurring of the terms. It warns of the dangers of escalating the polarisation through threats against women from some prominent Rainbow voices. This is amplified by the NZ media who uncritically supporting LGBT+ spokespeople, ignoring the diversity of views held by people who come under the ever-expanding alphabet umbrella.  WLA includes in its membership lesbian and bisexual women who see themselves as same-sex not same-gender attracted.

Hannah says, “We must be cautious to not feel the need to over-prove before we act: women’s, girls’ and gender-diverse people’s lived experiences should be enough.”

Yet she ignores the online abuse, the threats to women’s employment, and on occasions, physical aggression perpetrated by some trans allies and activists  towards women who speak or write about women’s sex-based experiences and rights, as seen at the Albert Park at the March 2023 Let Women Speak event.[5]

WLA has stated publicly that we do not support Kellie Jay Keen or her visit to NZ, and, while acknowledging she has a right to come to NZ and speak, we oppose her style and are highly critical of some of her views. We take a more nuanced position than Keen and The Disinformation Project, while welcoming a review into the policing of the Let Women Speak events.

It is our view that reasoned and respectful debate between proponents of gender identity and gender critical people are needed. This should avoid labelling women speaking for sex-based provisions as hateful, bigoted, or worse. As our article referred to above states:

“Most of those women are also very angry at what they perceive to be yet more misogynistic silencing of their views, and denial of their concerns. The more they are insulted, marginalised, and silenced, the angrier they will get. If they believe that those who are doing the insulting, marginalising, and silencing are left wing, they may be more inclined to move rightward – on this issue at least.

Also, as the rhetoric around these issues becomes more inflamed, a lot of people are likely to get more anxious, and anxious people often seek security and certainty by following a leader who presents frightening and complex issues in simple and absolutist terms.

“Just as trans lobbyists and allies have been happy to deploy exaggeration and hyperbolic rhetoric to paint a picture of trans people as the most marginalised and oppressed of all minorities, Keen is also prone to overstatement and pulls in a range of wider issues to paint the picture of “trans-identified males” as the group of men most dangerous to women and children.”

Biased reporting and misinformation about gender critical women in NZ media 

The NZ media has characterised women’s advocacy for our sex-based rights, services and protections as ‘hate speech’, part of ‘hate groups’ and being ‘anti-trans’,[6] despite a Judge of the High Court making clear groups expressing gender critical views are not “cannot rationally be described as a hate group[s]”. [7]At the same time media uncritically promotes the views of certain, mostly male Rainbow spokespeople who are opposed to women, including lesbian and bisexual women expressing gender critical views in public.[8]

The impact of this unbalanced coverage has been dangerous intensification and polarisation of the  battle for human rights recognition for women and trans people.[9] A more respectful, open, in-depth, and wide-ranging discussion of the issues is needed.

Accountability of centralised regulator and the codes of practice

A big concern about the proposed centralised regulator to manage safer online platforms is that of accountability, especially if the board is entirely appointed by the Minister.  So far no Member of Parliament has shown any concern for abuse of, and misinformation about those of us advocating for our sex-based rights, protections and services.

We have concerns about the likes of Kate Hannah and the self-appointed, unaccountable, and privately-run[10] Disinformation Project being widely accepted by the media and government as an authority on misinformation online and in the media.  The  Disinformation Project’s research on misogyny,[11] and Hannah’s article incorporate all ‘gender minorities’ and LGBT+ people with women as if they were a homogenous group equally and similarly impacted by sexism and violence. In so doing Hannah and the Disinformation Project have shown they are not neutral operators but have aligned themselves with the gender identity lobby.

Impact of the regulator and codes of practice on small groups and individuals using social media platforms 

The regulator will be focused on codes of practice being negotiated with large social media platforms.  Individuals and groups, like WLA, will have limited say in how we participate in important public debates, and how we may get censored on large platforms. Smaller websites may also be impacted, with the owners having little input into codes of practice.

A democracy depends on all being able to participate in public debates without political bias being exerted by those with more political power and social ability to influence. Trans and male-dominated Rainbow groups, while claiming to be highly marginalised, have an unprecedented presence and power in the public sector, business, and government.  Their demands are too often accepted uncritically, and without any in-depth scrutiny.

International obligations and congruence with other countries’ policies

Congruence with similar policies in other countries and regions, such as those being developed in Europe, have been indicated by the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms proposal. It states that codes of practice will apply to social media, regardless of the country in which they are based, if a significant number of New Zealanders use them. This includes platforms like Facebook.

It is therefore important that any government appointed regulator is mindful of NZ’s international obligations such as to CEDAW and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to developments on sex and gender issues in other countries.

We note that both the UK Conservative and Labour parties[12] have stated they intend to make clear that sex-based rights and protections of females will continue in UK law, and that it will be made clear that sex-segregated spaces and provisions remain protected in law.

Recommendations

WLA has significant concerns about the proposed Bill being unbiased, and about whether the regulator will be neutral and accountable. Any Bill formulated to try to counter misinformation and misogyny online, and in the media, needs to:

Acknowledge that women’s sex-based rights and provisions are enshrined in NZ law and in international obligations.

Show consideration of the various views on the issue here and overseas.

Be clear on the difference between sex (biological, evident at birth and immutable), and gender (a social construction).

Ensure that people with diverse views and backgrounds are included in the regulator board that will negotiate and manage the codes of practice.

Women with gender critical views about sex-based rights, along with an extensive knowledge of relevant evidence and laws, should be included in the regulator board, to balance the widespread tendency, across public offices, to uncritically accept the demands of transgender dominated Rainbow lobbyists.

Carefully manage the difficulties in maintaining a balance between open, democratic debate, the rights to freedom of speech, and potentially harmful content. Deciding on what counts as misinformation could depend on the ideological and political biases or background knowledge of the enforcers.

The general public should be surveyed for their views on any proposed codes of practice.

There should be robust, accessible systems to challenge any censoring of views or take down  notices by platform owners or the Regulator.

Consider how balanced coverage of heated topics can be ensured over time, not just within each news article, with more than one side being given reasonable space to present their views and evidence.

References:

[1] Women’s Liberation Aotearoa website, Principles

[2] Kate Hannah, “Speaking out about the silencing of women”, The Spin Off, 25 July 2023

[3] Terf Is A Slur, ‘Documenting the abuse, harassment and misogyny of transgender identity politics’

[4] “Hyperbole Waives the Rules”, WLA Website, 12 March 2023

[5] IPCA 2023 IPCA to review Police response to “Let Women Speak” event in Albert Park Auckland on 25 March 2023

[6]   1 News 2021 ‘Anti-trans’ billboard removed from Wellington’s CBD;  RNZ 2020 “Episode 2: TERFS – Alice Snedden’s Bad News;  Stuff 2023 Thousands reject anti-trans movement at rallies against Posie Parker tour

[7] NewsHub 2021 Speak Up for Women to hold Auckland event after High Court legal drama

[8] RNZ 2023 Shaneel Lal, first transgender person to win a New Zealander of the Year award; RNZ 2017 Insight Out – Raising a Transgender Child; Stuff 2023 Transgender advocate speaks out on controversial changing room stance; NZ Herald 2023 Gemma’s story: From Carmen and sex work to the Big Gay Out

[9] RNZ 2023 Posie Parker protest: Young man accused of punching elderly woman granted diversion; RNZ Police urge anyone including the rainbow community to report threats, violence;  1 News 2023 Anti-trans hate in NZ becoming ‘genocidal’ – Disinformation Project

[10] The Disinformation Project – About us

[11] The Disinformation Project Dangerous speech, misogyny, and democracy

[12] Evening Standard 2023 Rishi Sunak considering law change to define sex as ‘biological’;  The Guardian 2023 Labour vows to ‘modernise, simplify and reform’ Gender Recognition Act