NZ prime minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron address the press on the Christchurch Call at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 2019. (Photo: YOAN VALAT/AFP/Getty Images)

OPINIONPoliticsMay 15, 2020

A year on, the Christchurch Call must go beyond ‘don’t livestream mass murder’

Anjum Rahman

Contributing writer

NZ prime minister Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron address the press on the Christchurch Call at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 2019. (Photo: YOAN VALAT/AFP/Getty Images)

Regulation of online content has received little attention amid a global health crisis. But violent extremist activity has not stopped, and we need to get our response right, writes Anjum Rahman.

Today marks the first anniversary of the Christchurch Call, a response to the mass murder at two Christchurch mosques last year, a massacre livestreamed by the killer.

For the first time, in Paris on May 15 2019, technology companies and governments made a commitment to work together. Hurriedly, civil society organisations were invited to meet and be part of the Call. This was formalised in the creation of the Christchurch Call Advisory Network, of which, for full disclosure, I am one of three co-chairs.

The wording of the Call provided a narrow focus on areas that were less likely to be disputed. There has been general agreement that livestreaming of a mass murder is not desirable. Tech companies signed up to the Call have been successful in preventing sharing of livestream video footage of other mass murders.

The Call aims “to eliminate terrorist and violent extremis content online”. Defining who is a terrorist and how that is different from a violent extremist very much depends on one’s viewpoint. The cynic in me thinks “terrorism has become solely associated with attacks perpetrated by Muslims and the term “violent extremist” seems to be designed to keep it that way. Do white supremacist or “incel” killers not have a political agenda? They do seek to change behaviour and perceived power structures, along with terrorising the target population.

Resistance to state oppression has often involved violence. All countries recognise war heroes who fight for the state. Sometimes we recognise those who have fought against oppressive or enemy states – the French resistance, anyone? We haven’t come to any global consensus of when violence is or isn’t justified and calling armies “peacekeepers” can’t hide that they commit violent acts.

Some of the governments that have signed up to the Call have engaged in problematic activities in the online space. Whether it’s the misuse of Facebook users’ data, posting of inflammatory material, or other breaches of human rights.

Violence can be perpetrated by words and by moving and still images. In the domestic violence sphere, we recognise the impact of emotional abuse and harm. Depictions of violent acts can be traumatising, though they can also be evidence of crimes. Hate-filled language excludes and silences those who are subject to it, whether they are individuals or communities. Even moderators suffer the consequences.

Violent acts offline are preceded by violent speech, much of which is spread online. Mass murderers described as “lone wolf” attackers have significant histories of belonging to online chat groups, with like-minded members egging each other on. Dealing with expressions of online hate must be part of any successful counterterrorism effort and needs to be factored into the work of the Call. To be meaningful, the work has to move beyond livestream videos.

Along with the blocking of violent content, the achievements of the Call have included the development of a shared online crisis response protocol, and growth in the number of countries who have signed on. A major announcement in New York last September was the restructuring of the Global Internet Forum for Countering Terrorism (GIFCT).

While the move to independence is a positive one for GIFCT, in that it will now be an organisation with its own staff and director, it is still an organisation funded and governed by tech companies. The additional of an Independent Advisory Committee will give the forum access to the views of government and civil society representatives, those representatives have no voting powers or any effective way to exercise accountability other than through public and media channels.

Decisions made by the GIFCT have major impacts globally, both online and offline. There is a huge need for transparency and accountability in the way content moderation decisions are made. There have been concerns about the lack of transparency in the selection process for the Independent Advisory Committee. Individual platforms continue to have issues with their approach to fake news, bots, and the unwillingness to take down accounts of politicians and public figures who post content clearly in breach of the platform’s stated community standards.

The pressure for moderation of online violent extremist content can and will be used by governments to suppress opposition voices in their own countries. While the supporting governments of the Call are required to sign up to certain human rights commitments (notably, the United States is missing), there are limited policing mechanisms for those who breach those commitments.

All of this is why it is important to have a power sharing structure, where civil society organisations are effective in holding government and tech companies to account. Currently, the Christchurch Call framework has the greatest potential for civil society to have a meaningful input in the way technology is regulated, and to keep a watchful eye on the activities of the GIFCT. However, there remain challenges.

The Christchurch Call Advisory Network has no funding and is reliant on member organisations donating time and resources. Civil society organisations cannot match the profits of tech companies nor do they have the power to raise funding through taxation. There is still work to be done to ensure that there is adequate consultation, and mechanisms are put in place to ensure that the voice of the network is not simply ignored.

Regulation of online content moderation has not received much attention while the world is gripped by the global pandemic of Covid-19. Terrorist and violent extremist activity, however, has not stopped and marginalised communities continue to be at risk in almost every country. Technological developments have advanced at a much greater rate than governments’ and communities’ ability to respond to the dangers posed. This is why the work of the Call is urgent, and why it is so important to get the structures right.

Keep going!

Simon Bridges delivers his speech in the House, Budget 2020. (Photo: Getty Images)

PoliticsMay 14, 2020

A ‘tsunami of debt’: Parliament debates the Covid budget

Justin Giovannetti

Contributing writer

Simon Bridges delivers his speech in the House, Budget 2020. (Photo: Getty Images)

Budget 2020: Simon Bridges led the critiques, while Winston Peters got personal.

Grant Robertson’s budget spends too much money, delivers too little help to businesses struggling due to Covid-19 and will leave future generations swamped by debt, opposition leaders have argued.

The finance minister and the prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, faced enormous expectations before unveiling a budget designed to help New Zealand through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. There were hopes that the budget would save over 100,000 jobs at risk, tackle the threat of climate change and leave the country a fairer place than it was before the arrival of the coronavirus.

Ardern said she would like to see the parliament “come together as politicians”, and avoid the temptation to “retrench into our old patterns”. That wish went unfulfilled, with angry rhetoric coming from her own benches, as well as the opposition’s.

National Party leader Simon Bridges found little to celebrate in Robertson’s enormous spending plan.

He warned that a “tsunami of debt” was due to swamp the country’s finances. The budget expects the country’s debt to soar to nearly 54% of GDP before New Zealand’s books are finally brought back into balance in 2028.

The Treasury forecasts the government’s surplus last year will turn into a $28 billion shortfall this year, as tax receipts dry up and billions are shovelled out the door in wage supports.

“Having gone hard and early on lockdown, we went soft and slow on the economy,” Bridges told the house after a 40 minute budget speech by the finance minister.

The opposition leader warned that after flattening the curve of Covid-19, New Zealand needs to avoid flattening the economy.

Bridges and Act leader David Seymour said they were concerned that the Ardern government’s newly created $50 billion fund to rescue the economy from recession has allocated too much money to pet projects like new trains and ferries.

“We must not spend more than we need to in poorly prioritised areas. After health and after education, we need only ask one question about taxpayer’s money: does it save jobs?” said Bridges.

The National leader called the fund, which is the centrepiece of the government’s economic rescue package, a “slush fund” that could be doled out before an election scheduled for late September. Nearly $20 billion in the fund was not allocated in the budget, leaving a large amount for future announcements by the cabinet.

National has proposed sending GST rebates of up to $100,000 to small businesses to help with wage bills and rents. Bridges singled out the lack of supports for the ailing tourism sector as a major concern. “I think jobs are crucial and I don’t see ultimately here a plan for jobs and creating growth in our economy” he said.

Reiterating her focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs”, the prime minister called for the opposition to work with the government, while chiding Bridges for assuming “it’s business as usual”.

Ardern promised that the budget would leave New Zealand a better place than it was before Covid-19. The government has promised to provide more skills training for free, building 8,000 more houses with a new $5 billion construction fund, and finance thousands of new positions to clean up waterways and control predators.

“I give my commitment to New Zealanders that they will see us apply the same unrelenting focus we have had on our health response to Covid-19, to our economic response,” she said.

New Zealand went into the crisis with a healthy economy, low unemployment and an enviably small government debt by international standards. Even after the government’s projected near decade of deficits, New Zealand’s debt burden would still be smaller than that of the US, UK and Canada currently.

According to Robertson, years of surpluses and sacrifices by New Zealanders can now be put to use. “The rainy day has arrived and we are well prepared,” he said, adding that the budget’s Covid-19 fund is the largest expenditure in the country’s modern history.

Despite the billions in new spending, New Zealand is avoiding some of the choices made by other countries. There will be no massive programme of sending cheques to the unemployed, there are no announced changes to the tax system, no cuts to public services and no new pocket cash for the middle class.

Act’s Seymour said the government chose the wrong way to rebuild. Instead of slashing taxes and cutting regulations as he would prefer, the Labour-led coalition has looked to spending borrowed money.

“They are trying to plan an economy from the Beehive and I have no doubt that the MPs on the government benches are sincere, they really do believe they can get New Zealanders back to work by borrowing and spending money,” he said. “Countries that look inwards for jobs and growth find neither.”

The deputy prime minister and New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, said the government had no playbook to follow as it responds to the economic crisis expected to wash over New Zealand in the coming months and has looked to history, including US President Franklin Roosevelt response to the Great Depression with the New Deal for inspiration.

“All the rules of fiscal prudence are now obsolete,” announced Peters, during an address in which he frequently stopped to hector opposition members.

In between calling on New Zealanders to suspend their ideologies and reiterating the government’s commitment to spend whatever amount of money is necessary to support businesses, he told Bridges to “get a haircut, and a real job”.