The Free Speech Union has criticised the decision by New Zealand Police and the Firearms Safety Authority to revoke Brian Tamaki's firearms licence following recent public comments. While reiterating its opposition to those comments, the organisation argues that if criminal laws have been broken, the matter should be determined by the courts rather than through administrative action.
The Free Speech Union condemns the actions of the NZ Police and the Firearms Safety Authority to remove Brian Tamaki's guns in a raid on his house this morning.
"This morning the Police advised Mr Tamaki that his firearms licence had been revoked, and took his guns - not because he has been charged with an offence, but because of what he said," says Free Speech Union Council Member Douglas Brown. "That is the State using an administrative power to punish speech it has not been willing to put before a court."
If Mr Tamaki's recent comments crossed into criminal incitement, he should be charged and tried - not have his firearms seized and his licence revoked through a regulatory process that never goes near a courtroom.
The Union has already condemned Mr Tamaki's comments calling for New Zealand to be "purged" of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims and suggesting retaliatory attacks on mosques and temples. Its concern today is with the method the State has used to respond to them.
Brown says firearms licensing exists to manage genuine risk to public safety, not to sanction unpopular opinions.
"A licence can be revoked because someone is genuinely a danger. But offensive speech, on its own, is not evidence that a person intends to misuse a firearm. Mr Tamaki's comments were inflammatory political rhetoric, and the Police have not pointed to any genuine indication that he was about to act on them. Using the 'fit and proper' test to punish speech that shows no real danger is a misuse of that power."
Brown says the distinction that matters is between speech that is offensive and speech that is criminal.
"If the Police believe Mr Tamaki's comments amounted to criminal incitement or some other offence, they should investigate, lay charges, and let a court decide. If the conduct does not meet that threshold, the State should not be reaching for regulatory levers to impose a punishment it cannot, or will not, seek through the criminal law."
The Free Speech Union says the principle protects everyone, regardless of their politics.
"If a government can revoke a licence because it disapproves of what someone has said, every citizen should be asking who is next. Today it is a man almost no one wants to defend. But that is exactly why the principle matters – our commitment to civil liberties is shown in the difficult cases, not the easy ones."
Notes
At the time of issue, Police had not publicly set out the legal basis for the revocation of Mr Tamaki's licence. The Free Speech Union's comments address the principle at stake and should not be read as accepting any particular account of the underlying facts.
The Free Speech Union previously responded to Mr Tamaki's comments on 22 June 2026, condemning them while cautioning against responding to offensive speech by expanding censorship powers.
Previous statement:
https://www.fsu.nz/blog/free-speech-union-condemn-tamakis-remarks-and-defend-free-speech-principles
Source
Organisation: Free Speech Union
Document: Media Release
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.
❧
Human beings cannot flourish unless they are free! We protect, expand, and fight for New Zealanders’ rights to freedom of speech, conscience, and intellectual inquiry. We envision a flourishing New Zealand civil society that values and protects vigorous debate, dissenting ideas, and freedom of speech as cultural cornerstones.