BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on Immigration New Zealand’s decision to allow Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (also known as Posie Parker) into New Zealand breached the balance and fairness standards. The complainant was concerned with the broadcast’s description of Parker as ‘anti-trans’ rather than ‘pro-women’, and its link between Parker and people doing Nazi salutes at her events. The Authority found the item was balanced, referring to comments from both the Immigration Minister and Parker herself. It also considered Parker was treated fairly in the broadcast, noting the right to freedom of expression means broadcasters are free to use descriptors they consider appropriate, provided they do not breach broadcasting standards.

Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness

Background¹

[1]  On 9 January 2023, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (also known as Posie Parker, a public figure and activist based in the United Kingdom) publicly announced her intention to travel to Aotearoa New Zealand as part of her ‘Let Women Speak’ tour. She said she would host public events in Auckland | Tāmaki Makaurau and Wellington | Te Whanganui-a-Tara on 25 and 26 March 2023 respectively, at which she would speak, and provide an opportunity for others to speak.

[2]  Prior to arriving in New Zealand, Parker hosted similar events in the United States of America and Australia. Previous events overseas related to the tour resulted in violence and arrests of both attendees and counter-protesters (including in Melbourne on 18 March 2023).

[3]  The proposed New Zealand events raised concerns for some communities, resulting in various submissions, to Immigration New Zealand (INZ) / the Minister of Immigration, asking for the denial or revocation of any visa already granted to Parker. Members of the community also organised counter‑protests at the time and place of the New Zealand events.

[4]  On 21 March 2023, INZ considered Parker’s circumstances did not meet the statutory threshold required to ‘make her an excluded person and therefore ineligible for a visa or entry’. This was because the decision maker was not satisfied there was reason to believe, based on available evidence at the time, that Parker was likely to pose a threat or risk to security, public order, or the public interest. The Minister was provided with the relevant advice and information at this time, and declined to intervene on 22 March 2023. This information included advice from New Zealand Police | Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa that the events would go ahead regardless of whether Parker entered New Zealand (based on events overseas) and that the events were unlikely to result in violence as counter‑protest organisers were encouraging no interaction with event attendees.

[5]  On 23 March 2023, several organisations representing rainbow communities applied to the High Court for interim orders preventing Parker from entering New Zealand. The Court held an urgent hearing the following morning on 24 March 2023 but declined to grant the relief sought, issuing reasons for its judgment on 5 April 2023.

[6]  Parker therefore entered New Zealand on 24 March 2023 and attempted to complete her event on 25 March 2023. This was met by a large number of pro-transgender activists and the event was halted. Parker left the country the same day without travelling to Wellington as planned. Although her event did not occur on 26 March 2023, a large pro-transgender rally occurred in Wellington that day.

The broadcast

[7]  An item on 1 News on 22 March discussed Immigration New Zealand's decision to allow Posie Parker into New Zealand after an event in Melbourne was attended by neo-Nazis doing Nazi salutes. The item was introduced as follows:

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, the anti-transgender activist also known as Posie Parker, won't be barred from entering the country. That's despite strong words today against her views from the Immigration Minister.

[8]  The reporter, Kim Baker Wilson, noted Parker’s entry into New Zealand ‘has been hanging in the balance since an event in Melbourne at the weekend where there were clashes, where there were scuffles, and where there were people doing Nazi salutes.’ The comments were voiced over footage from Parker’s event in Melbourne, showing her speaking, followed by a group of people performing Nazi salutes outside Parliament House.

[9]  Baker Wilson stated the events sparked calls from some to bar Parker from entering the country, and INZ today released their decision finding there was nothing ‘to suggest that she is or is likely to be a threat to public safety in New Zealand.’

[10]  He then referred to the Immigration Minister’s statement that he would prefer she did not enter New Zealand, that he finds many of Parker’s views repugnant, inflammatory and wrong, and he is concerned with how she ‘courts some of the most vile people and groups around including white supremacists’ but he has been advised the threshold for intervention has not been reached.

[11]  Baker Wilson concluded this segment by noting:

So it does mean that Keen-Minshull, who calls herself a women's rights campaigner, will be allowed into the country, will be allowed to an event planned for here in downtown Auckland at the weekend. And today's developments come shortly after she said revoking her visa would be at the peril of the Prime Minister.

The complaint

[12]  Colin Cross complained the item breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

• Posie Parker was misrepresented as ‘being an anti trans activist rather than a pro women’s spaces advocate.’ Parker ‘makes it clear she is not against trans people but wants to protect the safety of women’s spaces.’ In support of this concern, Cross noted this issue ‘has been highlighted with cases from around the world’ where ‘male predators have used trans self ID rules to exploit women This risk was not acknowledged in any reporting.’
• TVNZ repeatedly claimed Posie Parker was ‘linked to Neo Nazis which is a lie. As Parker’s events are held in public spaces she has no control as to who might attend.’
• Concerning Parker’s later event in Auckland, Cross noted ‘a violent mob ended the event as she similarly had no control of who might attend’.

[13]  Regarding TVNZ’s reference to a YouTube video, Cross added:

• ‘it is absurd for TVNZ to reference a video discussion that occurred after Posie Parker’s visit to NZ as support for their reporting choices prior to and during her visit, where unlike in the attached video no reasonable debate or alternate points of view were ever presented.’
• The video linked ‘acknowledged trans women range across the spectrum from people with a genuine belief they were born in the wrong body to men who do it as a fetish to opportunist predators who use self ID opportunities to gain access to vulnerable women and children.’
• ‘As a public broadcaster it is naive and dangerous for TVNZ to shut down debate on this issue.’

[14]  Cross only raised the balance and fairness standards on referral to the Authority.

The broadcaster’s response

[15]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint, noting:

Balance

• ‘The attendance of neo-Nazis at this event is not disputed, and their support is also widely and commonly known and reported. Ms Keen‑Minshull has also been criticised in the past for associating with far-right figures.’
• TVNZ noted ‘significant viewpoints on the immigration issue were included in the report including from Ms Keen‑Minshull, Immigration NZ and the Immigration Minister, Michael Woods. We further note that significant viewpoints on this issue have been canvassed in the media throughout the period of interest so it is reasonable to expect that viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints that existed.’

Accuracy (not raised on referral) and Fairness

• ‘Ms Keen-Minshull is commonly known to be a British anti-transgender rights activist and founder of the group Standing for Women.’²
• TVNZ noted, both in the broadcast and in their response, that although Parker describes herself as a women’s rights activist, her views are anti-trans, not pro-women, as noted in her quoted position on trans people that ‘trans women are sexual predators who pose a safety threat to girls in female bathrooms’ and in her description of being a transgender woman as a "fetish".³

[16]  In response to the referral, TVNZ noted Parker made other anti-trans comments, such as in a later YouTube video involving Posie Parker including:⁴

• Trans women do it for a sexual fetish and ‘there are not men who don’t have predatory tendencies who want to enter into female spaces’ (at 38.08–38.55 minutes).
• Trans women are paedophiles: ‘many of the spokespeople (for transwomen) in the US … you’ve got a man who says little girls, five year-old girls are kinky. You know a lot of these men talk about rape fantasies, how the ultimate in being a woman is to be submissive and to be raped. There are a lot of men who are now seen by the Biden Administration for example as people that should be spokeswomen (from 39 minutes onwards).
• She directly links trans women (whom she refers to as men) with being paedophiles and ‘creepy men’ (42.21).
• ‘Well to be brutal when it comes to boys I think it’s online pornography that is totally corrupting most things our young men are doing … when I’ve talked to mothers of teenage boys who start identifying as girls, that is the route for a lot of boys’ (14.40).

[17]  Although post-dating the broadcast, TVNZ noted its inclusion shows Parker ‘saying these comments first hand, in case there is any doubt that she has stated these things, rather than simply being a report of the comments’.

[18]  TVNZ also argued against Cross introducing concerns with Parker’s association with neo-Nazis when this was not initially raised in the formal complaint. As we have noted previously, although the Authority can only consider standards raised in the original complaint, complainants are free to make more detailed arguments in respect of standards already raised.⁵

The standards

[19]  The balance standard⁶ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented (either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest) to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁷ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁸

[20]  The fairness standard⁹ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹⁰ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

[21]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[22]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.¹¹

Balance

[23]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.¹²

[24]  The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as something that would have a ‘significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’.¹³ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹⁴

[25]  The programme reported on INZ’s decision to allow Parker entry to New Zealand despite issues at her previous events and with her views. Given the public response to Parker’s entry into New Zealand (outlined in the ‘background’ section of decision), it is arguable this decision (and associated comments in the broadcast regarding her views) represented a controversial issue of public importance, and which was likely ‘discussed’ for the purposes of the standard. Accordingly, we have proceeded on the basis the balance standard applies to the broadcast.  

[26]  The next question under the balance standard is whether the broadcaster presented significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest. We consider this has occurred:

• Baker Wilson began the segment by noting Parker’s entry into New Zealand has been ‘hanging in the balance’, alerting viewers to the existence of conflicting opinions on the issue.
• Both the Immigration Minister’s views (that she will be allowed in despite him considering her views ‘repugnant’) and Parker’s (that ‘revoking her visa would be at the peril of the Prime Minister’) were presented in the item.
• The complaint focuses on the representation of Parker’s views, suggesting further comment regarding her ‘being an advocate in favour of women having safe spaces’ was missing. However, in the context of a short (less than two minute) news item reporting on one small aspect of a broader saga (outlined in the ‘background’ section), viewers would not have expected detailed analysis of Parker’s views and the programme did not purport to offer that.

[27]  In any event, as our ‘background’ section notes, the broader issue of Parker’s arrival in New Zealand was the subject of further controversy (and in turn media coverage). Viewers can reasonably be expected to be aware of relevant alternative perspectives on the issue.

Fairness

[28]  A consideration of what is fair will depend on the nature of the programme and the context, including the public significance of the broadcast. We take into account the nature of the individuals (for example, whether they were public figures familiar with the media, as opposed to regular people with no media experience), and whether any critical comments were aimed at them in their professional or personal lives.¹⁵

[29]  It is well established the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for a public figure used to being the subject of robust scrutiny and regular media coverage. It is also commonplace for public figures to be criticised without it giving rise to an expectation of participation in every broadcast.¹⁶

[30]  The question for us is whether Parker was treated unfairly. The complainant submits Parker was treated unfairly in that she was misrepresented as an anti‑trans activist (rather than a pro-women’s advocate) and linked to neo‑Nazis.

[31]  We do not consider the broadcast was likely to cause harm at a level meriting restriction to the right to freedom of expression. In reaching this finding, we note:

• Parker is a prominent figure in gender ideology debates (as evident in the next point).
• The descriptor ‘anti-trans’ is commonly used to describe Parker’s views.¹⁷ Specifically, she is reported as stating:
  • The ‘idea that trans women were women was “preposterous”’.¹⁸
  • ‘Why don’t you care about lesbian girls at 14 getting double mastectomies? Why don’t you care about that’ (in the context of the passing of an Act that would add gender identity to federal civil rights laws in USA. The report notes Parker misgendered the person she was speaking to and often refers to transgender men as “lesbians.”¹⁹
  • Men with guns should use women’s toilets (to allegedly protect women).²⁰
  • Her Twitter feed also includes many comments which she claims are ‘pro-women’ but are to the exclusion of trans women, eg ‘A woman is an adult human female’ (a key slogan of her organisation),²¹ ‘The women and girls in my family would like you to stay out of women’s spaces’ (in response to a trans woman stating they feel supported as a daughter, sister, aunt and niece);²² and ‘It’s not that men who call themselves women shouldn’t exist, it’s that women born male don’t exist.’ (effectively discrediting the existence of trans women).
  • Her organisation, Standing for Women, has the tagline ‘2023 is the year of the TERF’ (an acronym for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist).²³
  • The comments outlined by TVNZ above.
• In light of the above references (and particularly statements denying the very existence of transgender and gender diverse people),²⁴ we consider, as the New Zealand Media Council has recently, the descriptor ‘anti‑trans’ is literally accurate.²⁵ Provided it does not breach broadcasting standards, the right to freedom of expression means broadcasters are free to describe people however they consider appropriate.
• The broadcast noted people were ‘doing Nazi salutes’ at Parker’s previous events. This was a statement of fact, supported by footage, regarding people at a previous event that could not be said to leave viewers with an unfairly negative impression of Parker.
• The Immigration Minister’s comment Parker ‘courts some of the most vile people… including white supremacists’ was his opinion, which would have been understood by the audience. As a public figure, Parker can expect critical comments.
• We also note to the extent comments might have been perceived as critical, we consider these were made towards Parker’s professional life (in her position as the founder for ‘Standing For Women’ and an outspoken activist) rather than as an attack on her personally.²⁶

[32]  Accordingly, we do not consider the report exceeded robust scrutiny of a public figure, nor did it leave viewers with an unfair impression of Parker.

[33]  For completeness, we note the complainant’s concern the broadcast did not acknowledge the risk of ‘trans self ID rules to exploit women’. We note this is a common transphobic trope, capable of embedding long‑standing prejudice, with a disputed evidential foundation.²⁷ Complaints founded on a broadcast’s failure to convey tropes or arguments which are harmful to a protected section of our community are unlikely to find favour with the Authority and may, where appropriate, result in the Authority declining to determine the matter.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i
Member
14 June 2023

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Colin Cross’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 23 March 2023

2  TVNZ’s decision on complaint – 19 April 2023

3  Cross’s referral to Authority – 5 May 2023

4  TVNZ’s response to referral – 9 May 2023

5  Cross’s additional comments – 15 May 2023

6  TVNZ’s final comments – 16 May 2023

7  Cross’s final comments – 18 May 2023

¹ Information for this section is adopted from the High Court’s judgment in Auckland Pride v Minister of Immigration [2023] NZHC 758
² Citing Tim Fitzsimons “Prominent transgender advocate harassed by anti-trans feminists, video shows” NBC News (online ed, 2 February 2019)
³ Citing Patricia Karvelas “Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull's anti-trans rights campaign has become a headache for the Liberal Party. But the issue runs deeper than one MP” ABC (online ed, 26 March 2023)
⁴ Megyn Kelly “Trans Ideology Harming Women & Danger of ‘Affirming’ Care, w/ Kellie-Jay Keen ‘Posie Parker’ & More” (15 April 2023) YouTube <youtube.com>
⁵ See AP and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-153 at [10]
⁶ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
⁸ Guideline 5.1
⁹ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
¹¹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
¹² Guideline 5.1
¹³ Guideline 5.1
¹⁴ Guideline 5.1
¹⁵ Guideline 8.1
¹⁶ See Clough and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-053 at [19]
¹⁷ Stewart Sowman-Lund “What you need to know about the anti-trans campaigner heading to New Zealand” The Spinoff (21 March 2023); “What are Posie Parker's views and why are they so controversial?” 1 News (online ed, 24 March 2023)
¹⁸ “Woman billboard removed after transphobia row” BBC (online ed, 26 September 2018)
¹⁹ Tim Fitzsimons “Prominent transgender advocate harassed by anti-trans feminists, video shows” NBC News (online ed, 2 February 2019)
²⁰ Josh Milton “Gender critical feminist’ Posie Parker wants men with guns to start using women’s toilets” (30 January 2021) The Pink News <thepinknews.com>
²¹ See Standing For Women <standingforwomen.com>
²² See Kellie-Jay Keen (@ThePosieParker) <twitter.com> on 22 December 2022, 25 May 2023 and 24 May 2023 respectively
²³ See Standing For Women <standingforwomen.com>
²⁴ See Adam & Crawford and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-067 at [26]–[27] regarding the importance of recognising all people
²⁵ Hamilton Hart v NZ Herald (2023) NZMC 3402 at [27]
²⁶ Guideline 8.1
²⁷ See Adam & Crawford and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-067 at [42] regarding the importance of recognising all people