SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR SAVAGES??

Kaea, Issue 4, 1 September 1980, Page 27

SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR SAVAGES??

Do you believe that Islanders are entitled to special consideration because of the colour of their skin? Do you believe that law enforcement should be relaxed so that coloureds can murder* rape and bash without fear of punishment? Do you believe that Coloured savages should be allowed to threaten and intimidate Parliament and the New Zealand Public? Do you believe that Coloured LoafSrs and their illegitimate offspring are entitled to 70% of the Social Security money poured out by politicians, while the hard working White people are regularly neglected? Do you believe that arrogant Coloureds should get the Jobs of better qualified Whites? Do you believe that White people who live in the cities of New Zealand should be required to submit to violence at the hands of coloured criminals ? Do you believe that White Children should go to integrated State schools where thoy are shaken down* molested and assaulted by young coloured thugs? Do you believe that Coloured agitators should be free to incite to hate and violence against the White people of this country? Do you believe that Islanders and coloureds are indispensable to the harm* onious and orderly functioning of our society? If your answer to each of these questions is an emphatic NO. then contact:

NATIONAL SOCIALIST WHITE PEOPLE’S PARTY

Box 3789 Auckland...!

Again, the Nazis have little political impact although their activities and arguments are deeply offensive to the groups who are the subject of their attacks.

The League of Rights are very different in their approach and a lot more subtle. The League is an import from Australia where it was founded after World War II by Eric Butler. It arrived in New Zealand in 1970 and began in Tauranga. The League stresses Christian and patriotic (“pro-Britain, pro-New Zealand”) attitudes and is strongly opposed to a variety of things, particularly communism and anything that appears to further communist aims. The World Council of Churches and the United Nations both fall into this category.

The League distributes literature to support its suspicions and periodically Butler tours New Zealand to advance the cause. He is notable for the fact that he has written a number of books which claim that the Jews have been responsible for various events, including the Russian Revolution and the Wall Street crash, and that the Holocaust was a myth perpetrated by certain Jews.

Like the National Front, and in common with other extreme right-wing groups, the League believes that the multi-cultural society can not and will not work, and that

we should opt for the “superior traditions” of the AngloSaxon. They are very wary of saying anything directly about either Maori or Pacific Islanders, and the closest they come is when they talk of multi-culturalism. David Thompson, Australian-born national director, has said: “...we agree with them (the National Front) that the multiracial society has not worked successfully” and the “mixing of races” is not sensible (Christchurch Press, 19 Nov. 1979).

Part of their policy includes lobbying for an alliance between New Zealand, South Africa and Australia to ensure that their British, pro-white sentiments are continued. One of their members claimed in an interview with a Johannesburg newspaper that most New Zealanders were pro-South African. They have also been active in opposing fluoridation schemes, the entry of Asian refugees, and compulsory unionism, and more recently, they have started a campaign to reduce tax levels. The League claims to have members in all the major political parties and it is rather difficult to estimate the size of their membership or their political influence. They are clearly trying to increase both. Recently they have moved their headquarters to Auckland, and have opened a conservative bookshop in the city’s Canterbury Arcade.

Apart from the League, extreme right-wing groups in New Zealand tend to be small with few resources. One of the few occasions which did produce a degree of unity and a boost in public support was the issue of sporting contacts with South Africa. Beginning as early as 1962, pro-South African groups began to form in New Zealand and by 1972, there were at least six major groups and a host of smaller ones. They included the Southern Africa Friends Association, the Aid Rhodesia Movement, the New Zealand Rhodesia Society and the Association Defending South African Tours. The unity emanated from the fact that key persons in all the groups believed in the South African apartheid system because it preserved white supremacy, although it wasn’t always expressed like this. One organiser argued that “eighty percent of separate development is to the advantage of the blacks”. He went on to say that although he was very fond of the black man, he had no desire to have “one packing down in a scrum with me. I smell as far as he is concerned, and he smells as far as I’m concerned” (Sunday Times, 12 March 1972). It would be interesting to know how this “kindness to inferiors” attitude translated to the New Zealand situation. A number of these people made it known that they favoured a form of apartheid here.

Often individuals prominent in one organisation appeared as members of others. The chairman of the Association Defending South African Tours was also a leading member of the National Front and involved in other fringe groups such as the Friends of Chile. The North Island organiser for the National Front was at

various times a member of the New Zealand Democratic Party, the League of Rights and the New Zealand Rhodesia Society, and he also claimed to be a member of the National Party.

Another interesting characteristic of many of these activities is that they are ex-servicemen who have served with African or Indian units. One example is the one-time president of the Friends of South Africa who served with British and Indian armies and as a prison officer in Zimbabwe. He describes himself as an extreme rightwinger who has been involved in groups such as the Friends of South Africa and the Rhodesian Society to help the fight against communism and African barbarism. He is in little doubt about the virtues of the British:

The New Zealand forces did magnificently in the Middle East, they also fought a campaign in the Pacific not bad for three million people. This I put down to the old British Heritage. It’s there, you can’t rub it out. New Zealand, Australia or Canada, that British blood is there. It’s blood and guts (Sunday Herald 24 November 1974).

There is no mention of the Maori Battalion.

During the late 1960 s and early 19705, these individuals were in their element; they could combine their support for the whites in South Africa and Zimbabwe with arguments about the communist threat and the need for patriotism and racial pride. The anti-apartheid groups were seen by these people as being anti-white rather than anti-racist. And these arguments were apparent in the magazines of the extreme right in New Zealand, Heed and Pointing Right.

When the issue of sporting contacts was at its zenith in the early 19705, these groups enjoyed widespread support from people who did not always understand what or who they were supporting. After the position adopted by the Labour Government, some of the fire went out of the debate and the support for the groups began to decline. By the late 19705, a number of the groups had disappeared although others continue, and may gain from the reappearance of the whole issue in 1981.

The extreme right has suffered from the fact that it has never been united and organised to the same extent as its British counterparts. The issue of sporting contacts with white South Africans provided the impetus but there was nobody who could unite the array of groups. At least they can claim some success on this issue, particularly in certain rugby circles. The campaign to strengthen contacts with the junta in Chile has been inhibited by the trade union ban, and they failed to stop Asian refugees coming to New Zealand although the number of people coming is quite small. It will be interesting to see whether they can convince the government to welcome whites (“our kith and kin”) from Zimbabwe.

As for local race relations, the extreme right does not appear to have had much influence on matters relating to the Maori. But this is not to say that the potential doesn’t exist. An economic crisis would encourage support for the extreme right as it has always done. And the “haka” incident at Auckland University and the comments relating to it that have appeared in the interim report from the Human Rights Commission illustrate that New Zealand has its share of prejudiced people who are unwilling to grant cultural autonomy to the Maori. Properly organised, a group like the League of Rights could exploit these factors to the full. After all, few anticipated the rise of the National Front in Britain.

“ . . . intermarriage between Polynesian and Pakeha threatens the ‘unique talents’ of the Anglo-Saxon ...”