Veteran Journalist Ejected from Tribunal Hearing Over Article

An experienced journalist has been barred from a tribunal hearing concerning a dispute involving the organisers of the Wellington Pride Festival and a lesbian group. Jenny Ruth, a seasoned business journalist, was ejected from the Human Rights Review Tribunal session after publishing details about the case that other media representatives are permitted to cover.

The tribunal took action against Ruth, accusing her of “wilfully and without lawful excuse” disobeying a tribunal order. This decision has raised questions, particularly as other media outlets continue to report on the ongoing case. The hearing focuses on a decision made by the Wellington Pride Festival to cancel a stall that the Lesbian Action for Visibility Aotearoa (Lava) group had planned for a gala event in 2021. The cancellation was prompted by concerns over Lava’s anti-trans views, which were deemed incompatible with the festival’s values.

Details of the Incident

Ruth was removed from the hearing after she published an article on her Substack platform on Wednesday, where she included expert testimony from a witness representing Wellington Pride. The tribunal’s decision to eject her has sparked debate over press freedoms and the treatment of journalists reporting on sensitive issues.

While the tribunal maintains that Ruth’s actions violated its orders, other journalists present at the hearing have expressed confusion at the differing treatment. The ability for the media to report on tribunal hearings is crucial for transparency, particularly in cases involving significant social issues such as those being discussed in this tribunal.

With the ongoing tensions between the Wellington Pride organisers and Lava, the outcome of this tribunal could have lasting implications for both the festival and the broader LGBTQ+ community in New Zealand. Observers are keenly watching how the situation develops, especially regarding the balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring journalistic freedom.

This incident raises important questions about the accessibility of information in legal settings and how media professionals navigate reporting on controversial subjects. As the hearing proceeds, many are left wondering how it will influence public discourse surrounding LGBTQ+ rights and representation in New Zealand.