K R Bolton
Despite their intentions the Human Rights Commission campaign ‘Give Nothing to Racism’ shows that justice minister Andrew Little’s professed purposes for enacting a ‘hate speech’ law is not really intended to curb violence and abuse. The aim is to extinguish dissent.
The HR Commission campaign features media advertisements touting the commission’s ‘Voice of Racism’ audio documentary, with the speak-over by filmmaker/actor Taika Waititi. The expectation of something horrendous is built up by a warning that the contents are not suitable for younger listeners, and that those who find the experience too much to withstand can escape by clicking on a heart-shaped image. Here one is assured: ‘If this website experience has been distressing for you please ask for help’. Several ‘help’ links are provided. Headphones are recommended, presumably lest some unsuspecting snowflake overhear and evaporate in shame, remorse and self-guilt for harbouring ‘unconscious bias’ and being the beneficiary of ‘white privilege’.
Hence proceed with caution, all who dare, for here be a toxic brew of race-hate. 
Mr Waititi intones phrases that we are assured are from real-life experiences: ‘every-day racism felt by real people’. HRC explains:
To create the Voice of Racism, more than 200 people shared their experiences of racism in New Zealand. These were curated into a collection of everyday experiences, to represent the racism that exists in the lives of many. These experiences include things that were said to them verbally and through people’s actions, and the internalised racism they live with. These moments became ‘the Voice of Racism’, one collective voice that articulates the racism people exhibit both intentionally and unintentionally. 
Proceeding intrepidly we find, among others equally as banal:
‘I’ve tried to pronounce it right but I can’t’.
‘Are you sure? Can you check with the manager?’
‘Your daughter had a long name. Anything shorter?’
‘Sorry I didn’t realise you were in a que’.
‘I don’t understand what you are saying’.
‘I’m afraid we can’t help you’.
‘You don’t look like a lawyer’. [Surely a compliment?].
There are various categories each containing examples of what are regarded as different types of ‘racism’. Nothing is placed in context. What is consistent is that for Whites the position is ‘damned if you do; damned if you don’t’. Whatever you say is going to be unconscious bias, condescending, or aggressive. The snow-flake SJW might be just as reprehensible in her friendliness (unconscious bias. patronising) , as the most offensive skinhead; because both the bourgeoisie-hipster liberal schoolteacher and the booze-soaked, unemployed skinhead have profited from ‘white privilege’.
The examples are so broad as to make frank and open relationships between Whites and ‘others’ – such as existed here prior to liberal interference – difficult if not impossible. How is one supposed to have an open exchange when perpetually self-conscious of ‘slipping up’ and perhaps offending sensibilities in some ‘unconscious’ manner, and wondering whether one might be dobbed in to the HR Commissariat? The outcome can only be retardation of communication; guarded comments which themselves could be construed as ‘unconscious bias’, aloofness or awkwardness towards the ‘other’.
Recently I enquired about the origins of a woman who looked vaguely ‘Chinese’, but had an Indian-sounding name. She stated that she was from Nepal. There ensued an amiable conversation during which I learned some interesting things about her background. But according to the HRC I am guilty of assuming her ‘origins’ are outside New Zealand (which they are), and implying she is not a ‘Kiwi’ (some nebulous category that I do not accept for myself). Yet we are also told that we must ‘celebrate our differences’. To paraphrase Marx, liberal multiculturalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. The internal contradictions will overcome it, but it is the hapless Whites who will be scapegoated.
State Supported Hit-List
Among the ‘anti-racist’ organisations that the HR Commission recommends is Paparoa. Can it be just a coincidence that the allegedly ‘white supremacist’ organisation Hobson’s Pledge has the slogan ‘moving forward as one’, while Paparoa has: ‘We are one’? Further still, the entwined paperclips symbol of Hobson’s Pledge looks suspiciously similar to the HRC’s entwined hands heart logo. Is a nefarious conspiracy at work, when there are similarities of symbols and slogans?
Paparoa is a far Left web portal that serves primarily as a hit-list to identify those considered ‘racists’, to be sacked from jobs, harassed by police, smeared in the press, and made into pariahs. It publishes photos of individuals and seeks their identification. Is that the type of organisation that should be recommended by a Government agency? Apparently so.
Paparoa and its Leftist ilk refer to the dissident Right as ‘Nazi accelerationists’, a euphemism for ‘terrorism’; hence the dissident Right is criminalised. The far Left prepares the way for the State’s ‘hate speech’ laws.
Dissident Rightists, and really anyone who is vaguely ‘conservative’, are condemned for hiding their identities, with the insistence by the Left that this can only be for terroristic purposes. Yet Paparoa explains that its supporters are anonymous because of the supposed ‘psychosis’ (sic) of the Right. Here we see a clear example of psychological projection.
Paparoa in links to Fightback, a web portal for one of those obscure factions that align to Trotskyist communism. Paparoa also features a Trotskyite academic who comes from a fractious political milieu where he libelled other Trots, then retracted with the mitigation that he was drunk; the same oddity that claimed I wrote a book stating that Stalin was a ‘secret Jews’ (sic), and other odd fantasies. However, while this ‘scholar’ a few years ago seemed to be poised to replace Dr Paul Spoonley as the Left and media’s chief go-to academic for anti-Right hatchetry, Spoonley has maintained the position and in his retirement threatens to write another puerilebook on the Right as a sequel to Politics of Nostalgia (1987).
Dr Spoonley’s Damascus Moment
While said Trot ‘scholar’ is a compulsive liar, and as a Bolshevik is not encumbered by any sense of morality, honour or truth, to understand Spoonley we must look elsewhere. Presenting himself to conservatives and Rightists of sundry types during the 1980s as ‘an academic with no axe to grind’, in researching Politics of Nostalgia, this was a misrepresentation. On his own account Spoonley’s Epiphany on the road to anti-racism came in Britain during the 1970s. He claims that he was shocked by a white racist attack at a time when Black violence was overwhelming, as it still is. However, the defining moment for his career was the National Front march in Lewisham, 1977. Recently Spoonley, in trying to relate this to the NZ situation, in his decades-long quest to find an elusive ‘far right threat’ here, wrote:
When I was a student at the University of Bristol, there was a violent incident just blocks from my home. A young Asian man was held down while a swastika was carved into his stomach with a razor blade. It was 1977, and I was looking for a topic for my dissertation. I had found it.The level of hate puzzled me. Why would anyone do something like that because someone else was different? I went on to do my research on the National Front and (British) National Party. I was there in Lewisham later that same year when about 4000 National Front supporters yelled abuse at the local non-white community – protected by 5000 police. 
Spoonley by the 1980s, back in NZ, was very definitely someone who had ‘an axe to grind’. He sought out the Right-wing menace on which to build his career, and found such wild-eyed fanatics as the ‘1000 member’ League of Rights, (in reality the League was an incorporated society limited to a membership of 12) a middle-aged, middle-class group of largely world war veterans, based on Social Credit, whose ‘Action Seminars’ taught the terroristic methods of writing to newspapers. The tone of attacks on the Right was established around 1970 when the newspaper of the NZ Communist Party, People’s Voice, reported that a paraplegic demonstrator was attacked by a member of the League of Right wearing a swastika armband. As readers might discern, the smears against the dissident Right by academics, media and their psycho-Left allies have not changed.
Spoonley’s Damascus moment seems to be contaminated by False Memory Syndrome. Where his nightmare vision was of ‘4000’ racists attacking the hapless non-white community with the assistance of police, in the real world the ‘4000 NF supporters’ was 500.  The so-called ‘Battle of Lewisham’, as it is called in Leftist mythology, was a confrontation between thousands of anti-NF demonstrators, spearheaded by the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party, and the police. The Antifa heroes continue to celebrate their cowardly attacks, and allude with sniggers to the way they entrapped the ‘NF honour guard’.  Here is how one NF member described the situation:
‘I was trapped against a brick wall as the mob burst through. My legs gave way and I ended up on the ground. After being picked up by two policemen I sat on a wall at the side of the road. A black rioter aimed a brick at me but missed. …’ A white protestor said that this is what happens to ‘Nazis’. 
That was the experience of Esther Sizer, 72; apparently a ‘far right thug’, who would today be called a ‘Nazi accelerationist’.
The 1977 Lewisham march, a legally sanctioned event by Britain’s fourth largest political party, had an anti-mugging theme. The primary NF banner declared ‘Stop the muggers! 80% of muggers are black. 85% of muggers are white’. Of the area today, still the most violent in Britain: ‘NHS staff are being targeted by muggers trying to steal their identity badges so they can use them to obtain the free food and drinks being offered to doctors and nurses tackling coronavirus’. 
Ideological Roots of HRC Comrades: ‘Fascism’ Red Style
Applying the methodology used by the generic antifa, and its academic, parliamentary, and journalistic friends when smearing the Right, might we then say that Paparoa, because of its overt Troskyite links, is part of an ideological lineage that includes the ‘militarisation of labour’, subjugation of trades unions, torture and liquidation en mass, and the creation of concentration camps? That is to say, all the stuff the Left claims defines Fascism.
Trotskyism, named after Leon Trotsky, commissar for foreign affairs and chief of the Red Army during the first phase of Bolshevik Russia, is the dominant faction of the far left in New Zealand. Trotsky in replying to the socialist critic of Bolshevism, Karl Kautsky, insisted on the necessity of ‘state terror’.  On press freedom and ‘truth’: ‘… our problem is not to punish liars and to encourage just men amongst journalists of all shades of opinion, but to throttle the class lie of the bourgeoisie and to achieve the class truth of the proletariat, irrespective of the fact that in both camps there are fanatics and liars’.  On the regimentation of labour: ‘The very principle of compulsory labour service is for the Communist quite unquestionable. “He who works not, neither shall he eat.”’ …  On the militarisation of labour: ‘The introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable without the application, to a greater or less degree, of the methods of militarization of labour. This term at once brings us into the region of the greatest possible superstitions and outcries from the opposition’. 
Islam a ‘Rotting Piece of Cloth’ – Trotsky
The Left shed tears for Muslims after the Christchurch atrocity. How is it that atheists can stridently mince forth as the champions of religious minorities?
The early Bolsheviks also feigned sympathy for Islam, insofar as an insurrection of Muslims and other colonial peoples could be used to extend the influence of Bolshevism. What the Bolsheviks actually thought of Islam however, can be seen from Trotsky’s speech at the 1924 congress of the ‘Communist University of the Toilers of the East’, an institution established to manipulate colonial peoples:
‘Even today we can still observe in the East the rule of Islam, of the old prejudices, beliefs and customs but these will more and more turn to dust and ashes. Just as a rotting piece of cloth, when you look at it from a distance, it seems to be all of a piece, all the pattern is there and all the folds remain but a movement of the hand or a puff of wind is enough for the whole cloth to turn to dust. And so in the East the old beliefs which appear to be so deep are actually but a shadow of the past: in Turkey they abolished the caliphate and not a single hair fell out of the heads of those who violated the caliphate; this means that the old beliefs have rotted and that with the coming historical movement of the toiling masses the old beliefs will not present a serious obstacle’. 
To Trotsky and his militant atheists Islam is a rotting rag that will be crushed by the new economic forces of capitalism and liberalism which will act dialectically in destroying the traditional order, preparing the way for Communism. However, the Imams shared the Trotskyite bandwagon with their new-found comrades in cynically politicised lovefests following the Mosque shootings. Auckland Imams joined the platform with Trotskyite eminence Joe Carolan of Socialist Aotearoa; Organise Aotearoa; the LGBT-Marxist Love Aotearoa – Hate Racism, et al. It is touching to see how the Christchurch madness enabled the Godless to embrace Allah. 
While all this seems to have taken us a long way from the HR Commission, this is the ideological and historical lineage of organisations that are portrayed as civic-minded and well-meaning by the commission.
Why does the HR Commission, a state agency, endorse a far-Left Blacklist targeting individuals on political grounds? It is enough for David Seymour to disagree with Golriz Ghahraman in parliamentary debate over ‘hate speech’ laws, for Seymour to be accused of inciting ‘white supremacist violence’.  If Seymour’s remarks critiquing Ms Ghahraman’s support for the repression of political dissent are regarded as inciting violence then any criticism of the state’s liberal agendas will be regarded as ‘hate speech’ and liable to prosecution, should Little’s ‘hate speech’ law be enacted. Ghahraman’s histrionic posturing indicates that Seymour was accurate in calling her a ‘menace to freedom’, as are Mr Little and the others behind the façade of ‘human rights’.
Who are the ‘terrorists’?
Despite the combined police-media dragnet following the Mosque shootings, no sign of a ‘white supremacist’ terrorist cell was discovered, and no connections to Tarrant were found. Those are the facts whatever smoke and mirrors Spoonley et al produce to evoke a ‘Nazi’ spectre. It is disgraceful scaremongering for a repressive political agenda.
The only terrorist cell ever found operating in New Zealand was among Urewera Maori separatists in alliance with Anarcho-psychotics. So far from repudiating these lunatics (by which I mean the anarchist element), the Left united in solidarity. Among those implicated, but not tried due to a technicality, was Val Morse, head of the ironically named ‘Peace Action’, an anarchist whose pacifist activism includes her having led the frenetic mob that attacked NF member Cale Olsen in 2004. 
Wellington, 2004. Cale Olsen, remaining characteristically stoic, mobbed and beaten by Leftists. Foreground, left, Val Morse (in grey), peace activist, screams and jeers in her usual histrionic manner. Behind her is John Anderson, another ‘pacifist’ eminence in the anarchist movement.
HRC Report Shows Hate Speech Law Not Needed
In 2019 the HRC published a report signed off by HR Commissioner Dr Paul Hunt, It Happened Here: Hate Crimes 2004-2012. The title is plagiarised from a 1966 British alternative historymovie on the Nazi invasion of Britain.  That the HRC likens sporadic acts of mostly petty yobbism to a Nazi invasion indicates that the mentality at the commissariat is akin to the delusions of their psycho-Left colleagues.
Among the sundry examples of genocidal hatred we find that of Nic Miller in 2004. Miller, a member of the NF, was roughed up and robbed by Somali youths when walking through Newtown, Wellington. For such a provocative crime against the poor Somalis he was tried twice, unsuccessfully; a matter which is not mentioned in the report. That the Somalis themselves were later beaten by those other than Miller indicates more about the racial dynamics of Newtown than the spectre of ‘white racism’. It seems that Somali youth are such a menace that Black Power are looked to for protection in Newtown. In Auckland Tongan and Somali youth fight for street supremacy,  in one of the numerous displays of ‘celebrating our diversity’.
The report continues with examples that seldom give background and context, and do not indicate any discernible organisational presence by the ‘far Right’.
Using the same methodology, might we compile a list of crimes by Maori, Somali, Chinese, Tongan, Samoan, and other ‘ethnic’ gangs and identify them as ‘hate crimes’? Shall we place the thuggery in a political context and state that it is aligned with the Left? The presence of Black Power and the Mongrel Mob at the foundation of the Maori Party in 2004, their frontline presence in rioting against police during the 1981 Springbok Tour, and their support for the cynically politicised State rallies after the Christchurch mosque shootings, provide a more convincing association than the non-sequiturs of Hunt, Spoonley et al in their desperate attempts to justify their existence.
For example: are the violent muggings of Asians by Maori in Auckland hate crimes? If White yobs had been involved, they would certainly have been listed as such.  Whau Local Board deputy chairwoman Susan Zhu said the incidents have caused widespread fear among the Chinese community, who felt vulnerable and helpless in the wake of the attacks.  However, because the assailants were Maori, so far from there being condemnation for this racial abuse, Auckland Mayor Phil Goff reassuringly stated that ‘it was important that the young people arrested were supported and given help to change their behaviours’. 
Auckland University Chinese Student Society (AUCSS) president Phillip Wang said Chinese international students might be being targeted because criminals thought they came from rich families. “I think it’s more like a stereotyping thing. I think people think international students, or Asians in general, are rich, or have rich families. I think the criminals, they want to target international students or Asians in general instead of other people.” Other Chinese students at the university were scared to walk home at night, Wang said. 
The other notable targets, for many years, have been Indian dairy owners. The perpetrators are usually Maori or ‘Pasifika’. While commenting on the brutal killing of a dairy owner, an Indian report indicated the widespread character of the violence:
West Auckland dairy-owners are struggling to cop-up with the recent rise of aggravated armed assaults in their stores. Many shop owners and workers have started equipping them with arms and bats, a practise that Police would discourage. Kamaljit Singh who has run a dairy store for [the] last 30 years is upset to see all this happen. His store was recently invaded by young thugs armed with machetes. 
What Hunt’s report on ‘hate crimes’ unwittingly shows is that laws already exist for prosecuting any violence and abuse based on racial antagonism. So what is it that Andrew Little, Ghahramanet al want in implementing a ‘hate speech’ law? There only remains the criminalisation of any manifestation of pro-European dissent and criticism of globalist agendas. We have already seen how the Establishment reacts when there is the merest suggestion of a sense of community and identity among Euro-New Zealanders, with the example of the quickly aborted Auckland University European Students Association in 2017.  If stated outside the House, would David Seymour’s criticism of Ghahraman have been prosecuted as ‘hate speech’, especially given that he was accused inciting alleged ‘white supremacist threats’ against her?
Lamingtons and Rugby
While the likes of Paparoa state that the dissident Right’s appeal to ‘identity, community and purpose’ is a strong attraction, what is laudable for every other race becomes toxic when appealing to White youths. The HRC asks on the Voice of Racism project for ‘Western and Pakeha culture’ to be ‘challenged’ as the ‘norm’. What is this Eurocentric ‘norm’, this legacy of colonialism and buttress of ‘white privilege’? Ghahraman recalls when settling in New Zealand from Iran as a youngster:
Aotearoa New Zealand as I encountered it during the 1990s was a starkly monocultural society. Pakeha history and culture dominated the national identity and was presented to us newcomers as ‘Kiwi’. Kiwi food was pies and lamingtons, the language was English, kiwis loved rugby in winter and cricket in summer, the books I read through my school years were by English or American authors with a bit of Katherine Mansfield or Janet Frame… 
Ghahraman regards this as White cultural hegemony, where all other races were invisible. However what is she describing other than the total banalisation of ‘Western and Pakeha culture’, defined as pies, lamingtons, rugby and cricket? In her own words, she has described the reduction of European culture in New Zealand to a level beyond the puerile.
When Prime Minister Ardern opened the Labour Party’s electoral campaign for the Maori seats on 2 August, she stated that NZ was able to get through the covid 19 lockdown thanks to what we learnt from the Maori concepts of ‘family’ and ‘sharing’. Again, on Ardern’s own account, so devoid of spirit has the Euro-New Zealander become that he knows nothing of his own heritage and values stretching back millennia, and in times of emergency must look to a foreign people to have any notion of family and community. Yet any attempt to reclaim that primordial European heritage is condemned violently and frenetically as ‘race hate’, colonialism, and ‘white supremacy’, while all others are sanctified. Through the perpetual bedlam of ‘diversity’ that the regime aims to maintain by increasingly draconian laws, the one consistency that can be seen through the fog of liberalism is the hatred for any vestige of European identity, purpose and community.
 Voice of Racism, Human Rights Commission, https://voiceofracism.co.nz/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjcD86cHo6gIVlAsrCh15sAAHEAAYASAAEgIsDfD_BwE
 About the Voice of Racism, https://voiceofracism.co.nz/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjcD86cHo6gIVlAsrCh15sAAHEAAYASAAEgIsDfD_BwE
 Paul Spoonley, I thought there had been a decline in far Right politics, I was wrong, Stuff, 15 March, 2020; https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/120179211/i-thought-there-had-been-a-decline-in-far-right-politics-i-was-wrong
 This is the usual figure. See for example: Lewisham, London 1977: notes on fighting fascism, Al Jazeera, 25 November, 2018; https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/lewisham-london-1977-notes-fighting-fascism-181118080513964.html
 ‘Esther Sizer, don’t let them intimidate you, Spearhead, No. 109, September 1977, p. 19.
 NHS staff warned to hide ID after spate of targeted muggings, The Guardian, 25 March 2020; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/nhs-staff-warned-to-hide-id-after-spate-of-targeted-muggings
 Leon Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky (1920), Chapter 4.
 Ibid. Chapter 8.
 Trotsky, Perspectives and Tasks in the East (1924).
 K R Bolton, NZ in Wake of Mosque Shootings, https://www.kerrybolton.com/new-zealand-in-wake-of-mosque-shootings/
 Women MPs urge David Seymour to apologise for Golriz Ghahraman remarks; Newshub, 22 May 2019; https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/05/women-mps-urge-david-seymour-to-apologise-for-golriz-ghahraman-remarks.html
 Revealed – what cops filmed in the Ureweras, NZ Herald, 28 September 2011; https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10754889
 P Hunt, It Happened Here: Hate Crimes 2004-2012 (HR Commission, 2019).
 Residents share tales of terror from youth gangs in ‘dead end’ street, NZ Herald, 31 January 2007; https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10421675
 More teens arrested in relation to attacks on Asians, NZ Herald, 1 April 2016; https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11615300
 Brutal assaults scaring Auckland’s Asian students, NZ Herald, 30 March 2016; https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11613419
 International students seen as easy targets, NZ Herald, 31 March 2016; https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11614190
 Chinese students to meet with police, NZ Herald, 30 March 2016; https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/78356002/four-attacks-in-a-week-but-international-students-not-being-targeted–police?rm=m
 The family of slain Auckland dairy owner break their silence, SBS Punjabi, 29 May 2017; https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/the-family-of-slain-auckland-dairy-owner-break-their-silence
 Controversial European students group folds after ‘constant threats to safety’, Stuff, 3 March 2017; https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/90007049/controversial-european-students-group-folds-after-constant-threats-to-safety
 Golriz Ghahraman in The Big Questions, Penguin Books, 2018, p. 167.
One thought on “‘Anti-Racism’ Campaign Shows Bigoted Intent of ‘Hate Speech’ Law”