Those who have been following matters related to the use of the term "mentally diseased" in the July 15th Watchtower, will be aware that a complaint was laid with the NZ Human Rights Commission on 14th Sept. 2011.
Today I received a reply which is somewhat expected . . . but, I believe, also contains some acknowledgements which provide some cause for satisfaction . . . and opportunuty for further development.
I won't add anything specific at this stage, as there are a number of outstanding questions raised, which I wish to give further consideration to before proceeding.
Here's the reply for your consideration . . . I've highlighted some areas of interest . . .
84305 Hello ****** *****, Thank you for the copy of the 15 July 2011 edition of The Watchtower. I read with interest the article containing the material mentioned in your email of 14 September 2011. In your emails of 14 & 23 September you draw attention to the alleged treatment by Jehovah’s Witnesses of those who no longer wish to be identified as being Jehovah’s Witness. You describe it as a campaign of hate directed towards a specific group of people based on a conscientious religious choice. You say that if the distribution of similar material targeting a specific group on the basis of race or gender were to occur, such activity would be seen as highly discriminatory and totally unacceptable. You cite the 15 July 2011 edition of The Watchtower where apostates are said to be “mentally diseased.” The quote appears to have been taken from the New World Translation of 1 Timothy 6:3, 4. I found it interesting that when I looked at seven other translations of that section of the Bible none of them use the phrase “mentally diseased” in their translation. The use of the term “mentally diseased” to describe those who no longer wish to be identified as being a Jehovah’s Witness is offensive to that group of people; to those who experience mental illness; and to those who seek a society which respects the dignity of every person. Despite the offensiveness of the language there is no jurisdiction under the unlawful discrimination provisions of the Human Rights Act for the Commission to act upon the matter. There are two reasons for the lack of jurisdiction. Firstly, the edition of The Watchtower you forwarded is jointly published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc and by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada and it is printed in Canada. The jurisdiction provided by the New Zealand Human Rights Act does not extend to editions of The Watchtower published and printed in North America. In a recent decision about the extent to which New Zealand legislation applies beyond New Zealand the Supreme Court said: “It is a common law principle of general application in the interpretation of statutes that they are presumed not to have extraterritorial effect. Where statutes are silent on the question of extraterritorial application, the content and the purpose of the legislation may overcome the presumption.” “An enactment will generally apply to things done and people in the territory to which it extends and no further. There is a presumption that Parliament does not intend to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction, which can only be rebutted by clear words or necessary implication.” “A necessary implication is not something judicially engrafted onto legislation as a judicial value or policy judgment, however reasonable that judgment may appear to be.” An examination of the Human Rights Act leads me to conclude that it was not intended to apply to material printed and published in North America. Secondly, even if an equivalent edition to that of 15 July was published and printed in New Zealand there is not any general law in New Zealand that prohibits hate speech. The Human Rights Act contains two sections that prohibit hate speech based on colour; race; or ethnic or national origins. In a publication the Commission produced last year on the status of human rights in New Zealand there was a detailed explanation of those two sections of the Human Rights Act, see pages 132-134: The other grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act that are not race-related such as discrimination on the basis of religious belief have no equivalent to the prohibition against racial disharmony. The Act’s anti-vilification provisions apply only to the grounds of race, ethnic or national origins and colour; they do not apply to vilification on grounds of religious belief or to the lack of belief in respect of a particular religion. I appreciate that my response may disappoint you. Kind regards Robert Hallowell Legal Counsel