"Determining what qualifies as a ‘hate crime’ is entirely subjective and threatens to simply create a bigger stick"

"[D]etermining what qualifies as a ‘hate crime’ is entirely subjective ... and threaten[s] to simply create a bigger stick with which to beat unpopular views.
    “Criminal acts motivated by hate are already illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, categorising an existing offence as a ‘hate crime’ means punishing not just the action, but the perceived thoughts or motivations behind it.
    “New Zealand law already permits judges to consider motivation as an aggravating factor under the Sentencing Act. This is the right approach—judges daily use their subjective discretion in determining appropriate punishments.
    “Throwing red paint on an MP's office in response to the conflict in Gaza? Defacing an installation of the English version of the Treaty in Te Papa? Vandalising a rainbow pedestrian street crossing? All of these are [already] criminal offences—all should be addressed appropriately under the law. But who decides which is a ‘hate crime’?
    “No jurisdiction in the world has created an objective standard for ‘hate.’ Trying to legislate against something so subjective will lead to confusion and inconsistency in enforcement. There is far too much room for ideological interpretation when deciding if a crime constitutes as ‘hateful’ and to what extent. ...
    "Internationally, ‘hate crime’ laws have proven to be easily [exploited]. The rule of law is too important for our democracy to get caught up in subjective and ideological debates that undermine clear legal standards.”

~ Free Speech Union's submission on the Law Commission’s foolish consultation on hate speech law [More here]