Release the Data

Censoring & Attacking those questioning Government

LATEST UPDATE, 26 July, 2025

Scenario: Anyone who spoke out against the legitimacy of COVID-19 as a major threat was immediately branded a ‘misinformation spreader’ and / or ‘conspiracy theorist’ by Government officials and Mainstream Media. This was before any open public debate was allowed to happen. 

Ever since then, open public debate on COVID-19 and its response still has not happened.

Government and Media play a massive role in defining and presenting the focus of attention on issues. If they present a biased view of any event or situation, the public will develop a biased view as well because they only have exposure to the side of the argument that government and media deem “the good side”. 
 
The government have a conflict of interest with many areas of interest because the public’s general response often means either more or less powers given to them. Ditto the media; more influence or less influence over the public, in the wake of a crisis like COVID-19, for example.  
 
That is why giving the Government the powers to determine ‘What is the truth?’ can become a slippery slope because you will find that the option they are genuinely pushing for is the option that ultimately gives THEM more power or influence. 
 
BELOW are some of the things in the background that Government have been doing to squash resistance:
 
Hate Speech and Amendments to the Human Rights Act, 1993.

The Government in New Zealand is amending the Human Rights Act 1993 to strengthen laws against incitement and hate speech, including expanding protections to include religious belief.

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
 
  • Expanding Protections:

    The amendment specifically adds “religious belief” to the existing list of protected grounds, which currently includes color, race, ethnic or national origins. 

     
  • Strengthening Incitement Laws:

    The changes focus on strengthening the law against inciting hatred and discrimination, particularly in how it addresses hate speech and hate crimes. 

     
  • Public Consultation and Engagement:

    The Government conducted extensive public consultations and engaged with community groups to gather feedback on the proposed changes. 

     
  • Royal Commission Recommendations:

    The amendments are partly in response to recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque terror attacks, which highlighted gaps in current legislation. 

     
  • Existing Provisions:

    The Human Rights Act 1993 already includes provisions (sections 61 and 131) that make it illegal to use words that are threatening, abusive, or insulting in a way that excites hostility or brings into contempt any group based on the grounds of color, race, ethnic or national origin. 

     
  • Legislative Changes:

    The proposed amendments involve repealing certain sections of the Human Rights Act and inserting new provisions into the Crimes Act 1981 and the Summary Offences Act 1981. 

     
 
QUESTION:

Will these amendments and ‘protections’ provide more excuses for the Government to label anyone who disagrees with their definitions of ‘Hate Speech’ as criminals or even domestic terrorists?

Who will be in place to oversee the Government’s objectivity?

Who will be in place to oversee the overseers? Etc.