Ministry of Justice
K R Bolton
16 July 2021
I am a ‘New Zealand European’, according to the Government ethnic classification, aged 64. My maternal great-great-great-grandparents, a wheelwright and a laundress, arrived in Petone in 1840. My maternal great-grandfather arrived here in 1873. My paternal grandfather was a seaman from Leith, Scotland, my paternal grandmother, a match-girl from Bethnal Green.
I have authored seventeen books, and hundreds of papers on a variety of subjects that have been published in scholarly journals such as The Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies; World Affairs; India Quarterly; Journal of Russian Studies; Journal of Social Economics, etc., and I have served as a peer reviewer for scholarly journals. My papers have been translated into Farsi, Arabic, Vietnamese, Tibetan, among others. I am not a member of any party or group.
I wish to address concerns regarding the proposals to extend the Human Rights and Race Relations laws.
The premises are flawed. It is assumed that social cohesion can be legislated into existence for the purpose of sustaining a multicultural society. Social networks are formed around ‘nodes’ through assortativity, or ‘like attracts like’, which can have many variations, including race and ethnicity.
When a regime seeks to impose a dogma and requires laws in order to try and make this dogma work, the result is increasingly draconian and divisive.
It is ironic that the nebulous term ‘far right’ is being used to support the extension of ‘hate speech’ laws, and that this ill-defined ‘far right’ is equated with ‘white supremacy’. Yet the legal, moral and political concepts that are the basis of ‘human rights’ laws are of Western liberal invention. They are imposed on the assumption that they are universal, but they have no counterparts in non-European custom. Sometimes these supposedly ‘universal human rights laws’ are imposed with U.S., NATO or U.N. bombs. This is a form of cultural hegemony. It is part of the globalisation process.
Example of New Zealand Chinese
It is an odd situation when the Islamic Federation jumps aboard the Western liberal bandwagon to ask for laws that could theoretically stifle their own views on gender or on Israel, for example.
Ian Bing, the first Chinese hotelier in New Zealand, who was honoured with the unveiling of a bust in Picton in 2019,  whose grandfather came here as a gold fossicker, spent many years trying to warn of the direction in which New Zealand was heading. In 1989 he filed a submission to the Royal Commission on Social Policy, stating that the success of the Chinese in overcoming discrimination and animosity in the early days of their settlement was based on ‘minding their own business’:
Theirs was to dedicate themselves to bringing up their children in the better-known Chinese customs and traditions and to be constantly reminded of their cultural heritage, discipline in the home – but away from home and when mixing with European company, conduct was always to be exemplary and nothing would be done that would bring shame or discredit to our ethnic group. … The emphasis being that any wrongdoing, reported or otherwise, group-shouldering of guilt and shame were to be carried by all… 
The success of Chinese settlement into New Zealand did not include a grievance culture, but what amounts to de facto communal and cultural autonomy without imposition on others, based on what Mr Bing called ‘home guidance and discipline’. 
It is now expedient to blame ‘colonisation’ and ‘white privilege’ for the lack of such ‘home guidance and discipline’ within New Zealand’s many ethnic communities. Yet the New Zealand European is probably the only ethnicity that lacks a communal and cultural support network. When one looks at the social, political, economic, and cultural network of the Maori for example, it exists from hapu to Maori Council, with many intermediaries, in a parallel autonomy. If that is not working, and $69 billion of Maori assets  are not being wisely managed, then that requires self-appraisal rather than looking for scapegoats. Such networks provide the basis for each ethnic community to have a large measure of self-determination without imposition upon others, starting from what Mr Bing called ‘self-assessment’. 
Mr Bing cautioned against the types of imposition that are now proceeding apace, and of scapegoating for one’s own failings, writing:
I have yet to come across a single case where our folk either in organisation or combined effort made any call or demand for the abolishing of discriminatory practices and/or demands for racial equality. Yet again, I have yet to hear of any of our kin blaming the ‘white man’ for our own shortcomings or failings. 
Although New Zealand society is undergoing change, in many respects regrettable, I feel by and large, most of us will not forget the wisdom of our elders who have constantly reminded us of the need to be proud of our cultural heritage – but at the same time to accept the best of both worlds and to recognise qualities in ruling patterns and of other ethnic groups. 
He stated that ‘we have not in any way sought or demanded changes in legislation and/or of education to make our lot easier’. 
The New Zealand European serves as a scape-goat and a red-herring to deflect from the causes of problems. In that respect, Mr Bing commented of the early discriminatory measures towards Chinese, ‘certain writers would have their readers develop guilty consciences. I stress very strongly that I do not share those narrower views, less still yearn for sympathy’. That ‘combined resolve’ made the Chinese community stronger.  He rejected the now predominant view that ‘only the Caucasoid may not have pride in race’, and alluded to the Race Relations acts in this regard, adding: ‘In labouring the point, compassionate racism is acceptable – if not even admirable – bigoted racism regrettable’.  By ‘compassionate racism’ Mr Bing was referring to the ‘pride in race’ that is, for example, a stated aim of the NZ Maori Council. (Maori Community Development Act 1962, 18 : 1 : b (ii)). Mr Bing rejected the allegations of ‘discrimination’ directed at the ‘Caucasian’, and the assumption that ‘the Caucasian is not discriminated against’. 
Mr Bing in making his submission in 1989 concluded with the belief that ‘the Chinese minority may well hold the key and serve as an example for the means towards a more tolerant society’. That key, he stated, was ‘self-assessment’, without imposing demands on others. 
Perhaps if Ian Bing were alive today, he would be facing the prospect of a $50,000 fine or three years jail for expressing such views.
Reality behind the Facade
I knew Ian Bing during the 1980s, and he significantly influenced my outlook. He was keenly aware of the economic factors that are involved in what is now called globalisation. One would assume that Muslims would also be aware of these factors, but they have been stampeded by the Tarrant atrocity, to jump aboard bandwagons that they would normally reject.
The traditional social structure of cultures breaks down under the impact of an economic system that is based on an ‘inclusive economy’, behind the façade of ‘human rights’. So far from seeking alternatives to the economic treadmill that sacrifices all cultures, ‘human rights’ is the method which enforces social control.
Professor Noam Chomsky, who presumably will not be described as a ‘far right terrorist’, explained the process:
Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. On the long term you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist – but because it is anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic – there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced – that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance. 
Would this affirmation of race and description of the anti-human nature of capitalism be outlawed as ‘hate speech’, because it questions the premises on which multiculturalism are based? It exposes the contradiction inherent in multiculturalism: the aim of (a) ‘inclusiveness’ in an economy that, as Chomsky describes it, refashions individuals as ‘interchangeable cogs’, detached from ‘identifications of race’, while (b) demanding that ‘identifications of race’ be maintained as a ‘human right’.
That multiculturalism is intended as a sacrosanct dogma is implicit in the summary of the discussion document, where it is stated that the incitement provisions of the Human Rights legislation, ‘target speech that would have others believe that a society made up of different ethnic groups cannot function effectively’. However the primary discussion document, as distinct from the summary document, neglects to mention this. Why the obfuscation? 
What the summary document is stating is that it is the intent to outlaw any critique of multiculturalism as a viable concept. To ‘target’, as it is said, anyone who questions the viability of a multicultural society is to criminalise that person. It is to make criticism of multiculturalism a thought-crime. Hence we see academic apologists for the system becoming today’s lysenkos in propounding state-enforced dogmas that do not work, and it is called ‘science, while all other research is suppressed.
The rationalisation for this is that ‘this type of speech seeks to turn people against each other and create separation between communities’.  The premise is that any questioning of multiculturalism is ‘hate speech’, and should be prohibited because it is likely to incite violence. The assumption is that critiquing multiculturalism means that, ‘some groups of people have less value than others. There could be a belief that these groups should not have the same rights and be treated differently and excluded from wider society’. It is then stated that ‘it is important to note that these proposals don’t lower the threshold for criminalising speech or prevent public debate on important issues’. 
To make criticism of multiculturalism synonymous with incitement to hatred and even terrorism, has no logical basis. Anything can be taken to extremes. Should we judge Judaism on the actions of Baruch Goldstein, or Islam on Osama bin Laden, or Christianity on Jim Jones, or Hinduism on the Thuggee, or Buddhism on the kamikaze? In that case, the Labour Party shares a common ideology with Pol Pot.
Was the Dalai Lama inciting ‘hate’ when he stated in 2018 (and other times) of refugees in Europe: ‘Each country has its own culture, language, way of life, and it is better for people to live in their own country’. 
How do the proposals not lower the threshold of public debate, when it is explicitly stated that those who question multiculturalism are going to be ‘targeted’ (sic)?
Stifles scholarly research
Will the new laws prohibit criticism of immigration? Will it be prohibited to critique the United Nations Compact on Global Migration and what the U.N. calls ‘replacement migration’, because this questions the viability of multiculturalism? While the so-called ‘far right’ has been condemned and even outlawed for critiquing what it calls ‘the great replacement’, the U.N.’s own term of ‘replacement migration’ is not only similar but refers to the same demographic problems that the ‘far right’ sought to discuss. How can any issue be a ‘debate’ when only one side is enabled by law, and the other is prohibited on threat of three years jail or a $50,000 fine?
Such issues are implicit to wider questions such as whether the present treadmill growth-economy is preferable to a sustainable economy, with immigration intended to feed the growth economy. 
Shall referencing scientific papers be outlawed when these question some aspect of multiculturalism? I refer as one significant example to a recent meta-analysis of all the major studies on ethnic diversity and social trust, the abstract stating:
Does ethnic diversity erode social trust? Continued immigration and corresponding growing ethnic diversity have prompted this essential question for modern societies, but few clear answers have been reached in the sprawling literature. Taking this as point of departure, this article reviews the existing literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust through a narrative review and a meta-analysis of 1,001 estimates from 87 studies. The review clarifies the core concepts, highlights pertinent debates, and tests core claims from the literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. Several results stand out from the meta-analysis. We find a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies…
Wouldn’t the paper by Dinesen et al be classifiable as ‘speech that would have others believe that a society made up of different ethnic groups cannot function effectively’?
We have already seen how scientific papers that do not seem to accord with some aspect of the dogma result in suppression. For example in 2008 Dr Greg Clydesdale, Faculty of Management and Business, Massey University, wrote a paper for presentation at an overseas scholarly conference, on the question of the place of Pasifika migrants in New Zealand’s de-industrialised economy. One would think that a scholarly consideration of the problems emerging for the Pasifika communities would be welcomed. Far from it. Clydesdale was lambasted by the news media, academia, and politicians, and was investigated by Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres. 
It is not only what is stated in the proposals, but what is inferred; the toxic atmosphere that hangs over discussion on such issues. Augment this with a $50,000 fine or three years jail, and the atmosphere becomes stifling beyond endurance.
In regard to the proposed changes on transgenderism, this also proceeds from the premise that to question its normalisation is a heresy that must be outlawed. The amendments to the Human Rights laws are presumably intended to work in conjunction with the Prohibition for Conversion Therapy Bill. This Bill dishonestly equates all forms of counselling that do not encourage gender transformation as akin to exorcism. However, despite the impression given by that Bill, the scholarly research on the subject is far from concluded.
Given that the aforesaid Bill criminalises professional counselling, without making a differentiation between professional medical consultation and faith-based interventions, the Human Rights amendments will augment this by outlawing, or at least discouraging, scholarly discussion.
Already we can see how the State has attempted to shut down Family First, whose submissions and papers are based on scholarly citations, by trying to have its charitable status withdrawn. 
How are the Human Rights laws going to be applied to ethnic and religious customs that are not compatible with modern Western liberal society?
We have already seen an example of the contradictions that arise when the Prime Minister adorned herself with a hijab. She was criticised by Muslim feminists who stated that they consider the hijab a symbol of ‘oppression’. One New Zealand Muslim stated:
Unfortunately, it was uncool for the non-hijab-wearing women in my circle of friends, and I’m talking about consistent and practising Muslims who had cried their eyes out over the mosque attacks. For the zillionth time, they were made to witness their faith being politicised and reduced to a piece of cloth. 
This is an example of the muddle that is intrinsic to a multiplicity of values inherent in multiculturalism, which are all supposed to become part of a harmonious mosaic, while also somehow according with modern Western liberal concepts of civic virtue.
Are Muslims who object to the normalisation of transgenderism in schools going to be subjected to the Human Rights laws? In such circumstances, whose ‘human rights’ predominate, those of the transgendered or of religious communities? For example in Birmingham in 2019 Muslims demonstrated against transgender education in schools.  What if the situation arose here, since transgenderism is also part of the new histories curriculum?
Shall we see the jailing of Imam for condemning homosexuality, or for criticising Israel and Zionism? Or will that be ignored in the wider interests of community relations, and the law applied only to New Zealand Europeans and Christian conservatives?
The inherent contradictions of multiculturalism arose at the first annual hui on hate speech and terrorism on 15 and 16 June, which was supposed to focus on the nebulously defined ‘far right’. The Muslim delegates walked out due to a speech by Juliet Moses of the Jewish Council, in which she alluded to New Zealand Muslim support for terrorism in the Middle East. She was condemned for being ‘racist’. A spokesman for the Islamic Federation said that, ‘Moses’ comments had been a calculated attempt to denigrate Muslims present, including Palestinians, and “wipe out the memory” of those killed in the Christchurch mosque massacres’.
It was the view of the Muslims present that Moses’ comments had been ‘a calculated attempt to denigrate Muslims’. Had the proposed Human Rights amendments been operative, shouldn’t Ms Moses be prosecuted? One can imagine the international hue and cry if she was jailed for Islamophobia.Alternatively, were the Muslim delegates being anti-Semitic? Will Muslims be subjected to prosecution for criticising Israel, since Zionists consider any criticism to be anti-Semitic?
Among feminists there is debate over the nature of transgenderism, with a faction objecting to males assuming female gender identity. In New Zealand we see this with the organisation Speak Up for Women, a left-wing organisation – far removed from the ‘far right’ or Christian conservatives– which was recently denied council facilities to hold meetings. Will this faction of feminism be subjected to prosecution because of its criticism of transgenderism; or is it only conservative lobbies that are intended for ‘targeting’ (sic)? 
Could it be that the difficulties among various communities will be side-stepped by the ‘hate speech’ laws through the expedient of enforcing the laws only against New Zealand Europeans and certain Christians? The Race Relations and Human Rights laws have never been applied equitably.
Human Rights Commissioner Dr Paul Hunt’s sensationally entitled report on ‘hate crimes’, It Happened here (named after a low budget 1960s movie on the German invasion of Britain with the assistance of Fascist fifth columnists) strains to compile a list of supposed ‘hate crimes’ based mostly on media reports, and without any context. For example he states several times that ‘skinheads’ (plural) attacked Somali youths in Wellington. The actual case was that of a lone white youth who was mugged by two Somali youths in Newtown. The victim is turned into the villain on the basis that he is a New Zealand European, and guilt is assumed.  Dr Hunt in referring to the incident on page 3, alludes to a hung jury and a retrial scheduled for 2006. Yet he fails to mention that this retrial returned a not guilty verdict.
There has never been a time when the Human Rights and Race Relations laws were not biased against New Zealand Europeans. In 1988 Race Relations Conciliator Walter Hirsh stated of complaints to the Race Relations Office that ‘the majority of people who complain are offended and hurt white people. This was never the intention of the [Race Relations] Act; it was drafted for the protection of minority groups.’  The following year (April 1989) Alister Grant resigned from the Equal Opportunities Tribunal, stating that the Race Relations Office and the Human Rights Commission practised ‘reverse racism’. Mr Grant had observed that ‘people of colour’, to use a present social construct, were considered by those Offices as always right regardless of the facts.
‘Hate speech’ review considered two years before Tarrant
In 2017 Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy condemned an attempt to establish the Auckland University European Students Association. At around the same time she also condemned a small group called Western Guard that had posted a few stickers. It seems likely that each group would not have had more than a half dozen members. Ms Devoy stated that the groups were ‘full of hate and vile’. She stated that laws about ‘hate speech’ were being reviewed; that, ‘We are looking at the statutory limitations, we are reviewing the legislation’. 
Given Ms Devoy’s comments about the review of laws on ‘hate speech’ being under consideration in 2017, it seems that Tarrant serves as a cynically manipulated justification for draconian legislation that was planned long before the Mosque shootings.
When the Auckland University European Students Association had obtained permission to establish a stall during Orientation week, its declared aims included Medieval re-enactments, feasts, and hiking. The harassment of the embryonic group quickly drove it to oblivion. Yet on campus there is the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, which described itself as ‘a cultural, political and religious club, advocating for Israel and Judaism on campus’. 
Why is it acceptable for an association to call itself ‘Jewish’, and indeed Zionist, but unacceptable for one to be called ‘European’, even although ‘New Zealand European’ is an officially designated ethnic group? The New Zealand Maori Council has as its aim for Maori ‘to assume and maintain self-reliance, thrift, pride of race, and such conduct as will be conducive to their general health and economic well-being’. 
There are dozens of organisations advocating for ethnic communities, yet vitriolic objections by the Human Rights Commission arise when there is any positive mention of the ‘New Zealand European’.
‘Not okay to be white’
We see the implicit Europhobia in the reactions from the news media when anyone so much as chalks up ‘it’s okay to be white’, the implication being that it is not okay to be white. Even stating ‘white lives matter’ is objectionable; hence clearly for those who object, ‘white lives do not matter’.
Double-think must be employed to describe such slogans as ‘it’s okay to be white’, and ‘all lives matter’ as ‘hate speech’. For example, the Human Rights Commission opined in 2019 in regard to items adorned with ‘its okay to be white’ being sold on Trade Me that, ‘it seems likely that the stickers and T-shirts are intended to convey a message of intolerance, racism and division. There is no place for that in New Zealand’. The same article refers to outrage in 2017 from the Napier mayor when ‘it’s okay to be white posters’ appeared in the city. 
It is only the New Zealand European whose heritage is denigrated and who is denied the same rights to identity that are encouraged for all others. The New Zealand European is, to the contrary, imbued with Xenophilia and self-loathing. For example, Chester Borrows, former Government minister, and chairman of a review of the judicial system, recently stated on the Facebook page of Maori Party MP Ngarewa-Packer, that
More pakeha accept that Maori make pakeha unique in the world and are proud of that aspect of coming from this country … otherwise we might as well be the progeny of any bland Anglo-Saxon nation around the world’. 
Apply that xenophilic attitude onto at least 90% of parliamentarians, teachers, academics, journalists, church ministers, bureaucrats, and an attitude of indifference and cultural disconnect onto the rest, and one might begin to understand that the New Zealand European is certainly unique: it is the only designated ethnicity that does not have any identity other than a meaningless name for the purpose of census counting. The New Zealand European is unique in not being represented as an ethnicity in parliament, on local bodies, nor having a voice in the media. Those who are ‘white’ complexioned who attain such positions in no way represent the New Zealand European: they are Pakeha-Maori. Like Chester Borrows, they are disconnected from their heritage, know nothing of their culture, and couldn’t care less. Like Chester Borrows, they can only see the New Zealand European existing relative to the Maori. While it could be said that Mr Borrows is a deeply stupid, uneducated, uncultured little man, he and his type are products of a system that has indeed made the Anglo-Saxon heritage seem bland by disconnecting it from the spirit and soul that is encouraged for all other ethnicities.
It seems that the intention is to categorise the New Zealand European as ‘the other’, as a means of unifying disparate and even traditionally antagonistic ethnic communities around a common contempt for the European. There is nothing more effective than to have a common enemy around which to unite. The New Zealand European also serves as a scapegoat for perceived injustices, diverting attentions away from causes. With the chester borrows and paul spoonleys dominating enquiries into social problems the conclusions are based on Europhobic or Xenophilic reductionism that requires little or no more than referring to key words such a ‘colonialism’ and ‘neocolonialism’. The concept of ‘white privilege’ serves as a red-herring to distract from flaws in the economic system. An ‘inclusive multicultural society’ is a synonym for an ‘inclusive growth economy’, that requires feeding by what the United Nations calls ‘replacement migration’.
The Six Proposals
- Add more protected groups to the hate speech laws. This extends the range of suppression for debate, including scholarly research. Reject.
- Add ‘hate speech’ to the Crimes Act. This extends police powers for the purposes of suppression. Reject.
- Increase punishments up to $50,000 fines and three years jail. This equates with criminalising debate and opinion when contrary to state dogma. Reject.
- Add ‘incitement’ and ‘normalising hatred’ to the civil provision. This extends a draconian system, without precision of definitions. Reject.
- Add ‘incitement to discriminate’, which would extend the authority of the Human Rights Commission. The Commission is demonstrably biased, and intrinsically so. Reject.
- Add ‘gender identity’ to the Human Rights Act. As with ethnicity, this would impose repression, prohibiting or at least discouraging, debate on questions that are far from resolved by science. Reject.
In conclusion, all six proposals should be rejected as repressive, totalitarian, imposing a party-line, and a sacrosanct dogma. Any ideology that requires increasingly repressive laws to be upheld is intrinsically flawed. When people are imposed on each other by threat of law the result is resentment, not goodwill.
K R Bolton
 Firecrackers, chickens and the Chinese publican who saved Picton’s Crow, Stuff, 25 June 2019, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/113466108/fire-crackers-chickens-and-the-chinese-publican-who-saved-pictons-crow
 Ian Bing, Submission to the Royal Commission of Social Policy, 3 March 1989, p. 4.
 Reserve Bank report tots up $69b of assets in Maori economy, Stuff, 28 January 2021, https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/124067350/reserve-bank-report-tots-up-69b-of-assets-in-mori-economy
 Ian Bing, op. cit., pp. 4, 5.
 Ibid., p. 4.
 Ibid., p. 5.
 Ibid., p 5.
 Ibid., p.6.
 Ibid., p. 7.
 Ibid., p. 7.
 Ibid., p. 8.
 Noam Chomsky, Understandings Power (New York: The New Press, 2002), pp. 88-89.
Proposals against incitement, Summary Document: Freedom of expression is protected but it is subject to reasonable limits, p. 6.
 Proposals against incitement of hatred and discrimination, Ministry of Justice, p. 10.
 His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Rotterdam, 16 September 2018, https://www.dalailama.com/news/2018/his-holiness-the-dalai-lamas-response-to-a-question-about-refugees
 Paul Spoonley, Why Ethnic Diversity is Essential in a Post-COVID World, HRD: Human Resources Director, 17 June 2020, https://www.hcamag.com/nz/specialisation/diversity-inclusion/why-ethnicity-diversity-is-essential-in-a-post-covid-world/225415
Peter Dinesen, Merlin Schaeffer, Kim Sonderskov, Ethnic Diversity & Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 23, May 2020, abstract.
 Economist stands by underclass statements, Stuff, 31 January 2009, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/463023/Economist-stands-by-underclass-comments
 For example: Dr John Whitehall, Christian Transitioning: Childhood Gender Dysphoria, Family First, 2018; https://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/REPORT-Children-Transitioning-Childhood-Gender-Dysphoria-Dr-John-Whitehall.pdf
 Ali Shakir, Don’t let Jacinda Ardern’s headscarf send the wrong message, Stuff, 2 October 2019, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/116195738/dont-let-jacinda-arderns-headscarf-send-the-wrong-message
 Birmingham school stops LGBT lessons after parents protest, The Guardian, 4 March 2019.
Jewish Council Spokeswoman stands by comments after Christchurch hui marred by walkout, NZ Herald, 17 June 2021, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/jewish-council-spokeswoman-stands-by-comments-after-christchurch-hui-marred-by-walkout/VZKDLGGVJEJA7JH4ZQSERJN2FM/
 Controversial women’s group offered new venue in Dunedin, Stuff, 5 July 2021, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-government/300350002/controversial-womens-group-offered-new-council-venue-in-dunedin
 Paul Hunt, It happened here: reports on race and religious hate crime in New Zealand 2004-2012, Human Rights Commission, June 2019, https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/1515/6047/9685/It_Happened_Here_Reports_of_race_and_religious_hate_crime_in_New_Zealand_2004-2012.pdf
 Sunday Times, 10 July 1988.
 University group rejects ‘white pride’ accusations, Radio NZ, 2 March 2017, https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/325728/university-group-rejects-%27white-pride%27-accusations
 Australasian Union of Jewish Students, https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/on-campus/life-on-campus/clubs-societies/club-categories/religion/australasian-union-jewish-students.html
 Maori Community Development Act 1962, 18 : 1 : b (ii).
 Trade Me defends selling ‘it’s okay to be white’ items, Otago Daily Times, 22 May 2019, https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/trade-me-defends-selling-its-okay-be-white-items
 Chester Borrows, 21 June 2021, https://www.facebook.com/debbiengarewapacker/