Upholding Religious Freedom And Respect For All
Press Release: Joint Media Statement
Joint Statement from New Zealand Faith Communities
22 June 2025
As leaders and representatives of diverse religious communities across Aotearoa New Zealand, we are united in our concern about the messages promoted during the public protest held on June 21, 2025 by Brian Tamaki and his followers against immigration and the spread of non-Christian religions in New Zealand.
The right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy. However, we are saddened to see rhetoric that appeared to diminish the place of some faiths in New Zealand's multicultural society. Our religious traditions may differ, but we all share a common commitment to compassion, dignity, and the peaceful coexistence of communities.
New Zealand's strength lies in its diversity, including its religious diversity. The freedom to worship, or not to worship, is a value we all cherish. We believe that no one faith should be positioned as having greater legitimacy than others in the life of our nation.
We encourage dialogue rather than division, and understanding rather than suspicion. In times of tension, it is especially important that we come together in the spirit of unity and mutual respect.
We remain committed to working together across our faiths to uphold these values and to support the inclusive, respectful society that we all seek to build.
Statement supported by the following organizations, spokespeople noted:
Ben Kepes, Spokesperson New Zealand Jewish CouncilDaljit Singh, Chair NZ Central Sikh AssociationSecretary, Hindu Foundation New Zealand, IncSomaliland Society in New Zealand Incorporated
Wellington Abrahamic Council
© Scoop Media
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Harvard slams Trump administration funding cuts in pivotal court hearing
Steven P. Lehotsky, who argued for Harvard, called the Government's actions a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment, touching a 'constitutional third rail' that threatened the academic freedom of private universities. The attorney for the Government cast the case as a fight over billions of dollars. 'Harvard is here because it wants the money,' said Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer. But the Government can choke the flow of taxpayer dollars to institutions that show a 'deliberate indifference to anti-Semitism', he said. President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing on Monday afternoon with a post on social media about the judge. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.' He called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America'. 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard,' he said. Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday about the President's remarks. Peter McDonough, vice-president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, said all of higher education could be impacted by the case. 'And I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court,' he said. 'Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial,' he said, with the executive branch of the Government essentially charged with having violated those rights. The administration has engaged in intense efforts to force changes in higher education, which it has said has been captured by leftist ideology and has not done enough to combat antisemitism in the wake of protests at some colleges over the Israel-Gaza war. Its biggest target has been Harvard. The administration announced earlier this year that it would review nearly US$9 billion ($15b) in federal funding to the school and its affiliates, including local hospitals whose physicians teach at Harvard Medical School. In April, a letter from a federal anti-Semitism task force, alluding to civil rights law, demanded that the university upend its governance, hiring, student discipline and admissions, and submit to years-long federal oversight over multiple aspects of its operations. Harvard has been the Trump administration's biggest target. Photo / Allison Robbert, The Washington Post Harvard refused to comply. Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than US$2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard. It has also launched multiple investigations into the Ivy League institution's operations, threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status and moved to block its ability to enrol international students. Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the funding cuts, and later filed another to counter the administration's effort to block international students and scholars from Harvard. In the latter case, Burroughs twice ruled swiftly in Harvard's favour, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-US students while the case proceeds. On Monday, Harvard's lawyers argued that the Government violated the school's First Amendment rights and ignored the requirements of federal civil rights law, and that its actions were unlawfully arbitrary and capricious. Any claim that Harvard is simply interested in getting money back is 'just false', Lehotsky said. 'We're here for our constitutional rights.' He called the Government's actions an end-run around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and compared it to the scene in Alice in Wonderland in which the queen orders that the sentence comes first then the verdict afterwards, with the funding freeze preceding the investigation required by statute. 'The Government now says Title VI is totally irrelevant,' he said, arguing it had cooked up a post hoc rationale. Harvard had asked the judge to grant a summary judgment, set aside the funding freezes and terminations, and block any similar actions as soon as possible before September 3, after which the university believes the Government will take the position that restoration of the funds is not possible. Velchik, the Justice Department attorney – himself a Harvard alumnus – defended the Government's decisions to slash the university's funding in response to what he said was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism. 'Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,' he said. Those same funds would be 'better spent going to HBCUs or community colleges'. The Government cancelled the grants under an obscure regulation that allows it to terminate funding when they no longer align with agency priorities. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Velchik said. Although Burroughs pushed both sides to justify their arguments, she appeared sceptical of the administration's rationale for the cuts. She repeatedly pressed the Government on what process it had followed in deciding to terminate a major portion of Harvard's federal funding. 'This is a big stumbling block for me,' she said, even as she acknowledged the Government had argued some of its points well. ('A Harvard education is paying off for you,' she told Velchik.) Burroughs noted that the Government had apparently slashed Harvard's funding without following any established procedure or even examining the steps Harvard itself had taken to combat anti-Semitism. If the administration can base its decision on reasons connected to protected speech, Burroughs said, the consequences for 'constitutional law are staggering'. At one point, Velchik appeared to grow emotional. He spoke about wanting to go to Harvard since he was a child, then seeing the campus 'besieged by protesters' and hearing about Jewish students wearing baseball caps to hide their kippot, a visible sign of their identity. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayers should not support this,' he said. Burroughs also spoke about the case in unusually personal terms. 'I am both Jewish and American,' she said. Harvard itself has acknowledged anti-Semitism as an issue, she said. But 'what is the connection to cutting off funding to Alzheimer's or cancer research?' she asked. 'One could argue it hurts Americans and Jews.' A complaint by Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors against the administration, filed before the university took action, is being heard concurrently with Harvard's case. In its court filings, the Justice Department urged Burroughs to reject Harvard's request for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a motion in which a party in a civil suit asks a judge to decide a case before it goes to trial. To win a summary judgment, the party filing the motion must show there is no genuine dispute over the central facts of the case and they would prevail on the legal merits if the case were to go to trial. Harvard supporters, with crimson-coloured shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse on Monday afternoon. About 100 alumni, faculty, staff and students rallied in a joint protest with the Crimson Courage alumni group and supporters of the American Association of University Professors union. 'What the federal administration is doing is basically co-opting American values for their own political ends, and we are determined to say this is not what America is about,' said Evelyn J. Kim, a co-chair of the Crimson Courage communications team and a 1995 Harvard graduate. 'America is about the values that allow for Harvard to exist.' Walter Willett, 80, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, biked to the rally to deliver a speech to the group. In May, US$3.6 million of National Institutes of Health grant money that funded Willett's research on breast cancer and women's and men's health was cut, he said. It is critical to push back against the administration, Willett said. 'In this case, our basic freedom – what we're fighting for – is also at stake.' Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war sparked concerns. Photo / Josh Reynolds, The Washington Post The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard. More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue the administration is imperilling academic freedom, the autonomy of institutions of higher education and the decades-long research partnership between universities and the federal government. Eighteen former officials who served in past Democratic and Republican administrations noted in a brief that they were aware of no instances in more than 40 years where federal funds had been terminated under Title VI, the provision of civil rights law that Trump officials have in some cases cited in slashing Harvard's grants. The administration received outside support in a brief filed by the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Iowa. 'There are apparently three constant truths in American life: death, taxes, and Harvard University's discrimination against Jews,' it said, citing Harvard's own internal report on anti-Semitism on campus. Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-24 academic year sparked concerns from some Jewish and Israeli students, but the administration has repeatedly said the problem persists and must be acted upon forcefully. James McAffrey, 22, a senior and first-generation college student from Oklahoma, co-chairs the Harvard Students for Freedom, a student group that joined the rally on Monday to support the school. He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's wellbeing. 'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Populist makes ground in Japan with nationalist, anti-immigration rhetoric
'Japan must be a society that serves the interests of the Japanese people,' Kamiya told his applauding audience. Kamiya founded the party and is one of its two sitting members in the upper house. Elected to a six-year term in 2022, he is not on the ballot this year. But he has crossed Japan to campaign on behalf of Sanseito's 54 candidates, a large number that reflects the new party's big ambitions. Opponents and many domestic media reports have accused him of being xenophobic, saying he is directing public dissatisfaction with high prices and stagnant wages at Japan's growing population of foreign residents. At campaign stops, small numbers of protesters hold up signs saying 'no hate' towards non-Japanese. But his message has clearly struck a chord with many voters. Polls before voting in yesterday's upper house elections showed Sanseito is likely to place third. This would be a strong showing in a nationwide election by a party that did not exist five years ago and that has drawn mainly young, male voters. Kamiya said he learned many of his emotional button-pushing themes and norm-breaking language from Donald Trump, saying in an interview that he was Japan's closest equivalent to the divisive US President. His success in turning himself into a lightning rod for supporters and critics alike has left many in Japan wondering if their country is belatedly seeing the angry right-wing populism that has transformed the US and other developed democracies. 'This could be an epoch-making election,' said Jiro Mizushima, a professor of political science at Chiba University who has studied populist parties in Europe. 'For the first time, a radical populist party that is openly chauvinist and against austerity is winning support.' Other political scientists play down the significance of Sanseito, whose name roughly translates to 'participate in politics'. They call it one of many flash-in-the-pan protest parties that Japan has seen in recent decades. Kamiya was hoping a big win will show that his party has staying power as a growing generational divide splits Japan's voters. Analysts say Sanseito and a gaggle of other, more moderate nationalist parties have drained support from the pragmatic and conservative Liberal Democratic Party, which has led Japan for most of the past seven decades. Sohei Kamiya takes a populist approach that highlights immigration. Photo / Ko Sasaki, the New York Times They say the assassination three years ago of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a longtime party leader who dominated Japan's nationalist right, opened space for the outspoken newcomers. 'The LDP has been unable to hold onto the revisionist and xenophobic element that used to be contained in the Abe faction,' said Koichi Nakano, a visiting scholar at the Weatherhead Programme on US-Japan Relations at Harvard University. That loss is reflected in opinion polls, which show that support for the governing coalition has continued to slide. If the Liberal Democrats do poorly, there are widespread expectations that Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba will be forced to resign, though his successor would still most likely come from within the party, which remains the largest. Many voters have turned to Sanseito and other nationalist parties that have fed on anger about the status quo. To varying degrees, these parties rail against similar issues: the price of staples like rice rising while wages have remained flat; a tax burden that forces young people to pay for Japan's ageing population; and an over-reliance on the US, an ally whose threats of tariffs have stirred feelings of betrayal. The hottest of the hot-button issues, though, has been a rapid increase in foreign residents, whose number reached 3.8 million last year. While only 3% of Japan's population of 124 million, the number has risen by a third in three years as workers from other parts of Asia have come to fill jobs left vacant by the decline in the country's working-age population. On social media, immigrants have been blamed for disrupting Japan's prized social order, and for a host of misdeeds like not paying hospital bills and driving on the wrong side of the road. While police statistics show that non-Japanese commit crimes at roughly the same rate as Japanese nationals, populist candidates and supporters have seized on crimes by foreigners to argue that immigration should be restricted. 'We don't want to exclude all foreigners, but Japan should be for the Japanese,' said Yoko Kiba, 47, a hospital worker who came to hear Kamiya speak during the campaign stop in the southern city of Kagoshima. Seeking to address such discontent before the election, Ishiba announced last Tuesday that his Government would create a new office to address the crime issue and promote 'harmonious coexistence with foreign nationals'. In addition to wanting to limit immigration, Kamiya has opposed the use of some vaccines and criticised gender equality for 'going too far'. But his core message is that Japan has put the interests of foreigners over those of its own people. Kamiya, a boyish former Self-Defence Force reservist, warned in his Kagoshima speech of a different foreign threat: global capital, which he said has hijacked the economy. 'Under globalism, multinational companies have changed Japan's policies for their own purposes,' said Kamiya, 47, who did not name any companies, though his party's candidates have mentioned Chinese investors buying forests and other real estate. A survey found 28% of voters in Japan are most concerned about the high prices of rice and other foods. Photo / Chang W. Lee, the New York Times 'If we fail to resist this foreign pressure, Japan will become a colony!' He has called for a more equal relationship with the US by building a fully fledged military — and by refusing to cave in to Trump's market-opening demands, despite his professed admiration for the American president. 'President Trump would treat a more independent Japan with more respect,' Kamiya told the crowd, who stood on a paved square dusted with grey ash from the active volcano. His party's other headline-grabbing policy has been the call to eliminate a 10% national consumption tax, imposed to help pay the costs of Japan's growing population of retirees. In his speech, he said the tax placed an unjust economic burden on working-age citizens. This message appealed to many spectators, who said they felt alienated by the governing party's focus on older voters. 'Sanseito speaks from the younger people's perspective,' said Yuka Matsuki, 23, who recently quit her job at a retail store. 'It gives us hope that things will get better in the future.' In an interview, Kamiya said his positions were shaped by his experiences as an exchange student in Canada and by helping his father run the family supermarket, which went bankrupt. He later became involved in local politics and joined the governing Liberal Democratic Party, which he quit because he considered it too focused on fundraising. Five years ago, he started Sanseito, which shuns big donors, instead funding itself by asking supporters to become paying subscribers to its website. In elections in 2022, the party won its first seat in the upper house, which Kamiya now holds. He is not up for re-election until the next upper house contest in 2028. Sanseito gained one more seat last month when a lawmaker left another small opposition party to join it, and it won three seats in a lower house election last year. Recent polls show Sanseito with about 6% of the national vote, enough to give it between 10 and 20 of the 124 seats up for grabs. It often polls neck and neck with the Democratic Party for the People, a more moderate right-wing party that has also attracted younger voters. Kamiya hopes the momentum will help Sanseito grow into a larger national movement. He wants to create a Japanese cousin of Trump's 'America first' movement, though he will not follow Trump in every regard. 'Sanseito's vision is close to 'America first,' but not its leadership style,' Kamiya said. 'Trump's egotism is just too self-centred for Japanese.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Martin Fackler Photographs by: Ko Sasaki, Chang W. Lee ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
7 days ago
- NZ Herald
Older, white males without university education feel most restricted in what they can say, study finds
It follows controversies such as 2021 protests against a teacher in Batley, West Yorkshire, who received death threats and went into hiding after showing pupils a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad from Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, during a religious studies lesson. Similar concerns over the right to freedom of expression and protest have been raised in the aftermath of the October 7 2023 Hamas terror attack on Israel and the ensuing Gaza conflict. More than a third (36%) felt they had to hold back on expressing their views on race or ethnicity, while 32% said they did not feel they could freely speak out on immigration or religious extremism. On asylum and Gaza, 31% felt constrained, rising to 41% for transgender issues. Groups that were predominantly white, male, older, and non-graduate were more strongly in favour of free speech, regardless of the issue, but at the same time felt more constrained in their ability to freely share their views about most topics. Nearly half of this group (48%) said they felt they had to restrain their comments on race, far higher than the average of 36%. The same was true on immigration, where 43% felt they had to hold back on their views compared to an overall average among the public of 32% who felt constrained. Christians were more likely to back the right to free speech, but also more likely than average to feel they had to hold back on expressing their views. Conversely, women, younger Britons, and people from ethnic minorities or non-Christian religions tended to think that people needed to be more sensitive in the way they spoke. Just under a third (29%) of all those polled agreed that people needed to be more sensitive. But this rose to 34% amongst women, 45% from ethnic minorities and 45% for non-Christians. By contrast, men, people aged over 65, those from white ethnicities, and Christians were more likely to think that people are too easily offended. While on average 49% felt people were too easily offended, this rose to 56% of men, 54% of those from a white ethnicity and 59% for Christians. These were nearly double the rates for people from ethnic minorities and non-Christians. Race and ethnicity was the only topic overall where the balance of opinion was more towards avoiding offence rather than speaking freely (by 42% to 34% ), according to the research. People predominantly held back from expressing their views to avoid causing offence or starting an argument. Forty-six per cent resisted expressing their views on any religious figure, text, or teaching and just 35% held back their political views to avoid causing offence. Some said they held back because of heightened concerns about their safety. For religious topics, 25% said they restrained themselves because of safety fears, and 17% over political views. The report said there was a group of people for whom free speech was a significant issue. They represented about 37% of the total sample and were described by researchers as those who were most concerned about the pace of change. But they were also the group most likely to express 'heightened concerns' about their ability to speak freely about race, immigration, asylum, and religious extremism. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: 'The left's determination to shut down debate around immigration has created a chilling environment for free speech. In this context, a catch-all definition of Islamophobia would be a disaster, worsening the culture of fear that has spread throughout society.'
