Rights Aotearoa against Stuff

Stuff published an article October 12, 2025, titled Chloe Swarbrick, how should we define her contribution to politics?

This was an opinion piece in which the columnist took issue with comments by Green MP Chloe Swarbrick and others who referred to what was happening in the Gaza war as genocide. The columnist then went on to dispute their reliance on the UN definition of genocide which he said was more expansive than what the layman understands.

“We understand that genocide entails rounding up families, herding them into cattle cards before cramming them into a fake shower.  We imagine mothers hugging their children as they choke to death on poisonous gas. On an industrial scale.”

He said that whatever Israel’s intentions were, there was no comparison to what happened in Rwanda, Cambodia or Treblinka.

Paul Thistoll, chief executive of Rights Aotearoa, complained the publication breached Media Council Principle (4) Comment and Fact. He said the column made demonstrably false factual claims about the definition and legal requirements of genocide under international law by applying an impossible narrow definition of genocide.

The Genocide Convention defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". These acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.  

Mr Thistoll said the columnist built an argument that genocide required Holocaust-scale industrialised killing, and therefore Gaza could not accurately be described as genocide. The convention contained no requirement that killings needed to be “industrial” or required an “industrial scale apparatus.” The columnist's definition was factually incorrect.

The columnist had also misrepresented the convention by stating that intent was a barrier to applying genocide law to Gaza. It was also factually wrong to say any instance of genocide had to be comparable to previous cases.

“The columnist's opinion—that Gaza should not be described as genocide—rests entirely on factual claims about what genocide law requires. Those factual claims are wrong. Therefore, the foundation of the opinion is defective.

“A columnist is entitled to argue "I believe Gaza is not genocide because..." But they are not entitled to argue it based on false legal definitions. The material facts—what the Genocide Convention actually requires—are misrepresented.

“Genocide denial is not a legitimate political opinion deserving of platform space. It is a denial of documented atrocity. Stuff would not publish a column denying the Holocaust on grounds of "free speech" or "political debate." The same standard should apply here.”

In response Stuff said it appreciated this was a highly controversial topic.

“This piece appeared in our opinion section, where we aim to reflect a range of views on topics. We have also published commentary from a range of others who interpret the situation in Gaza differently and clearly believe genocide is taking place.

“While the UN and a range of other highly reputable groups/individuals have expressed concern that acts in Gaza may amount to genocide, we note that the International Court of Justice has not made a determination on whether genocide has occurred. In its provisional measures order, the Court found that the claim was plausible and warranted further proceedings, but no final ruling has been issued.”

The Media Council notes the column was clearly marked as opinion. Principle (4) Comment and Fact says:

“A clear distinction should be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion. An article that is essentially comment or opinion should be clearly presented as such. Material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate.”

The Council understands the point made in this complaint that the internationally recognised legal definition of genocide as expressed under the Geneva Convention is not as narrowly defined as the columnist suggests. The word “genocide” was first coined during World War 11, by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin, a Jewish refugee who lost most of his family in concentration camps.  The convention was drafted to codify and criminalise a range of international war crimes. 

This was an opinion piece in which the columnist was free to critique the views of Chloe Swarbrick and others and to challenge their views by arguing that the Convention’s definition of genocide is too broad and not applicable. It was a political and rhetorical argument he was entitled to make, and which Stuff was entitled to publish.

Clearly the conduct of the war in Gaza has been a matter of international debate. Claims of genocide have been made and denied and the issue will no doubt still be contested even if it is ultimately adjudicated on by the International Court of Justice.

The preamble to the Media Council’s statement of principles says there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression. People may object to what has been written or said and they are entitled to protest their views but as the Council has stated before people do not have a right to not be offended.

Decision: There were no grounds to proceed.