A government select committee hearing oral submissions on proposed hate speech legislation in Auckland this week heard a range of arguments for and against, from the ridiculous to the sublime. Massey University researcher Peter Saxton said society must ask itself what is an acceptable cost of free speech and who is going to pay the price for it. In his submission, he argued that there is strong evidence of violence and homicide directed at GLBT New Zealanders because of their sexual orientation, with the causal link between hate speech and harm self-evident. "Speech that dehumanises classes of people in particular is a critical factor in violence and homicides directed at target groups," he wrote. "The treatment of hate speech as causing 'mere offence' trivialises its impact and is usually offered by those who are never the target of hate and who never have to bear its costs." The religious right think-tank the Maxim Institute thinks hate speech laws are unnecessary, because it is impossible to determine where to draw the line – although they contended that laws already on the books which outlaw hate speech on racial grounds should be kept. Ironically, their examples of hate speech included jokes about Australians. In a considerable departure from previous submissions, Maxim almost avoided the topic of homosexuality altogether, although there was a clear allusion to it in concerns raised over the positive role of "social stigma", which Maxim feel will be restricted by hate speech law: "It can be argued that disagreement about a person's behaviour, for example their practice of religion or choice of sexual partner, is not necessarily an attack on their dignity as a human being. There will always be disagreement about right and wrong, about what constitutes good and bad behaviour."