When does inaction become a liability? In New Zealand’s response to recent protests by a fringe group of Sikh separatists, this question has a troubling relevance.
The government’s stance—that peaceful protests must be protected under free speech rights—might appear principled on the surface. But peel back a layer, and it’s clear that this is not just about free speech. It’s about internal security, about managing New Zealand's relationships, and most crucially, about protecting the social cohesion that defines our multicultural society.
The recent protests in Auckland might have barely scratched the numbers. Nearly 75,000 Sikhs live in New Zealand, and not even 30 turned up for a protest in Auckland last week.
Led by a US citizen, this demonstration, openly supported by other foreign agitators, showcased disturbing rhetoric, including tearing the Indian flag and promoting hate speech against India. The incident should have sparked significant introspection among authorities, yet the official response was passive—a bystander stance with a fallback on “free speech.” In reality, it is not free speech that is under threat here; rather, it is New Zealand's peace and stability that are at risk.
These events should prompt us to ask: Is the government’s reluctance to act a sign of willful blindness or a failure to appreciate the risks that come with ignoring divisive rhetoric?
Let’s be clear. No one is suggesting that lawful expression should be stifled. New Zealand prides itself on being a country where people can speak their minds. But when “expression” extends to organised, inflammatory attempts to sow discord in our communities, it enters a different realm—one that deserves scrutiny.
Leaders of New Zealand’s 75,000-strong Sikh community have already indicated that this fringe separatist agenda does not represent their views. And the numbers speak for themselves: not even 30 individuals turned up at the Auckland rally. This tiny turnout reflects the widespread rejection of such divisive agendas by local Sikhs who, for decades, have embraced and contributed to New Zealand’s multicultural fabric.
Yet the government’s stance implicitly emboldens these activists to continue pushing boundaries, testing just how far they can go. This is not a passing wave, either. The same individuals arrived in New Zealand last year for a similar purpose, only to return this year with more virulence and a willingness to desecrate symbols and incite hate. These tactics should sound alarm bells; they are characteristic of a dogged campaign seeking to escalate its presence and influence.
Allowing these activities to pass unchecked risks New Zealand becoming a soft target for international factions with divisive agendas. In the short term, incidents like these strain diplomatic relations with India, with whom Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is trying hard to get a strong diplomatic and trade relation going. This is not a trivial risk. It affects our global standing, our international trade, and the lives of New Zealanders with deep connections to India.
More subtly, ignoring such activities sets a precedent that New Zealand can be used as a stage for political theatrics aimed at foreign interests—a role that, ultimately, serves neither New Zealand nor its people.
Escapism may seem like an easy strategy for now. But a passive stance risks providing fertile ground for future unrest. Experience in other countries has shown that foreign-led separatist movements often begin small but grow as they exploit a host nation’s freedoms to spread their message. Once these movements gain momentum, they become far more challenging to control. If New Zealand’s leadership continues to turn a blind eye, it may find itself grappling with larger, more disruptive protests that no longer remain “peaceful” or “fringe”.
The argument for inaction based on free speech doesn’t hold. New Zealand law already places limits on free speech when it incites hate or threatens public order. In 2018, the then mayor Phil Goff cancelled an 'alt right' speaking event planned in Auckland.
"I just think we've got no obligation at all - in a city that's multicultural, inclusive, embraces people of all faiths and ethnicities - to provide a venue for hate speech by people that want to abuse and insult others, either their faith or their ethnicity," Goff had said.
If foreign-led demonstrators are advocating violence, hate, or racial discord—particularly when they target a diaspora community within New Zealand—they should be held to account. Protecting free speech does not mean tolerating imported hostility that disrupts the peace and cohesion of New Zealand’s communities.
We should be listening to the local Sikh community, which has made clear its disapproval of these foreign agitators. They understand the threats posed by imported agendas that seek to fracture a community rather than build it. Many Sikh leaders have raised concerns, both with the police and government, about how such displays are being handled. And their concerns are valid. By ignoring the sentiments of this community, New Zealand’s government is inadvertently legitimising the disruptive elements that threaten it.
ISSUE
