In the Harry Potter books/films/ iconography, the Wizarding community avoided naming the evil Voldemort out of fear, as if the very name would bring evil upon them. Only Harry Potter, unsaddled by age and prior knowledge and with an over-confident courage, systematically names the fear from which everyone else resiles.
The Prime Minister’s decision not to name last week’s gunman stems from a more pragmatic goal: to avoid providing him with the notoriety that he apparently seeks.
If all had gone to his plan, more victims would have been killed and probably he would have died too, blown up in his car (no doubt in some sort of spectacular location) by his own design. Martyrdom is so often sought by those with a passionate cause to achieve, no matter how wrong.
As it is, there will be a trial. Some are calling for a Nuremberg-style hearing at the trial where not only the perpetrator, but also his beliefs and his platforms, will be investigated. Some of that is inevitable, as the Crown builds a case against him that can be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
But those who might think that the courts will go further than this, delving into the base instincts of the racist movements spawned in this latest incarnation of white supremacism, will be disappointed. The courts of justice are somewhat mundane in such respect, and the law is less interested in the beliefs that underpinned the act, than the act itself.
For example, there are important questions of human rights in the debate we will be having, but in the law the Bill of Rights Act is subordinate legislation; that is, it cannot act on and transform other legislation. Time for a look at that, too, I think, as part of the broader inquiries that will follow the killings.
Moreover, there is a question over whether we want that particular witch’s cauldron to be stirred up. As many commentators have now correctly identified, there is more white supremacism than not in the post-colonial history of Aotearoa.
And it is important to remember that the ideologies that drove the Nazi party in pre-war Germany were very widely held in the white world right up until after the second world war. Very widely indeed – white male thinker after white male thinker, academics, presidents, royalty and others attributed racial superiority to white races, even though to do so required some significant departures from history (e.g. the belief that Adam and Eve were white and that people of colour were unhealthy distortions of the beautiful white original form).
Here in New Zealand, many of our institutions were born out of the eugenics movement, the pre-war movement that advocated racial purity and selective breeding. For example, Sir Frederick Truby-King founded the Plunket Society out of a concern that white women were not having enough babies. Education, he said, caused women pain in childbirth and weakened them, and he was against it (oh my, the intersection of race and gender is so important and so rich a vein to plunder – I promise to write on this later).
The Nazi party, the Third Reich and the Second World War saved us from officially being a eugenic state. To say that eugenics went out of favour after the extermination of millions of Jews, gay people, academics, left-wingers and others during the war is an understatement. There was a massive repudiation at all levels of such views.
It took 50 years for such views to re-emerge onto the public stage, and the development of a new platform, the internet, for the racist right to once again become established within the English-speaking world. And how dangerous it has become, emerging at just the same time that world events were stimulating mass immigration. A huge collision and a recipe for disaster.
The question is, should the perpetrator be left unnamed: name the crimes but not the man, else he become a martyr? Or should his name be shouted from the rooftops, cried out as a symbol of what we do not want and will not bear?
I agree with Jacinda that she should not name him. I think in general we should not. At trial, he will be named and held accountable, because that is the system of law that we have.
But the emphasis must not be on he-who-must-not-be-named, but on the inquiries that must now take place. Aotearoa must face its history as a nation whose white people have benefitted since settlement from state-sponsored racism. There must be healing and redress for that (a process started with the Waitangi Tribunal but by no means complete). The ‘never in peaceful New Zealand’ discourse has hidden deeper truths.
The institutions that are supposed to protect us from extremism will come under significant scrutiny, and will be found wanting. My colleagues on TDB are correct in identifying them as part of the problem, biased against the left and left activism. I think a significant shake-up of our security structures will take place, which is about time.
Finally, we must know that outpourings of love and kindness will not make the doctrine of white supremacism disappear, but will just make its practitioners more cautious, sending the movement once again underground. I am very in favour of love and kindness, they are powerful weapons, but not enough in this case.
Over time, high quality education and social and economic opportunity, especially for dispossessed young men whose best friend is the fringe of the internet, are the solutions to this ideology.
Dr Liz Gordon began her working life as a university lecturer at Massey and the Canterbury universities. She spent six years as an Alliance MP, before starting her own research company, Pukeko Research. Her work is in the fields of justice, law, education and sociology (poverty and inequality). She is the president of Pillars, a charity that works for the children of prisoners, a prison volunteer, and is on the board of several other organisations. Her mission is to see New Zealand freed from the shackles of neo-liberalism before she dies (hopefully well before!).
Totally agree, and as an older white man, NZ needs to address it’s racist past & present. but I’m not sure about your last line
so more resources get spent on young white men. I’m don’t pretend to know the answer but isn’t it time they just got over themselves, their days of being privileged are over and if strong women and Maori or migrants threaten them go to Bunnings get some cement and deal with it
The thing is, with these kinds of ‘situations’ is that the more tender we are about them? The more opportunistically exploitable they become by others. And aint that what we got?
I say, hang it all out in the sunshine. See what happens. I’m sure, if history’s anything to go by, ‘good’ will prevail.
There’s nothing the Darkness feels more comfortable with than the latitude to be able to sneak around in the shadows. Lets not forget… That’s what gave us neo liberalism; the factory that manufactures narcissistic sociopaths.
Excellent Post @ Dr LG. In my humble opinion.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist
She referred to “human weeds” that needed to be removed
White supremacy is the fashionable issue at present, but racism is sadly part of the human condition and not limited to any one skin tone. It was made very clear to my kids that they did not measure up as they were too white while attending an 80% Maori Primary School, despite us having some Maori DNA. My sister traveled extensively through China back in the 80’s with a black South African guy who considered they way they were both treated there made Apartheid South Africa seem egalitarian. My Samoan bro-in-law has occaisonally told me what some of their community think about the mainstream NZ white culture… eye opening.
It appears there are always going to be a minority who for some reason cannot see commonality in other cultures/races. I fear that implying this is just a white issue will only make the situation worse. I met some of these young white guys a generation behind me who have been getting the message all their lives that they are rapists because they are male, they are racist because they are white, and they are priveleged because they are both. Some of these guys unable to find work, no prospects of owning a home, and feeling like they are always second rate citizens, the prospects scare me. Then if they see what appears to them as favouritism of others, particularly migrants who are perceived to be given houses, money etc without contributing to society, it is a fertile breeding ground for extreme views to ferment.
This is the first time in my life I am genuinely scare for the future of this country. Saying all young white male people are extremists might eventually be a self-fullfilling prophecy. Every other class of people is allowed to stand on the merits of the individual, but suddenly whites share collective blame. This is not true, and can only end badly.
I agree Ben, add in the echo chambers of influence on social media and bandwagon main stream media and we have a distasteful cocktail of ‘us and them’ groups with little useful debate and discourse.
Your headline photo of john key is somewhat flattering,
What was missing in Norway then for Anders Brevik?
I say bollocks!
The term should be ‘White Nationalist’ NOT ‘White Supremacist.’
Entirely two different things.
Nowhere does Tarrant mention supreme race. That was the ideology of Hitler.
The question to Trump was framed:
“Was he concerned about White Nationaist’s on the rise?”
“Tarrant’s 74-page manifesto titled, “The Great Replacement,” rants on topics regarding mass immigration, low European fertility rates and his explanation
for committing the attacks.”
He talks about European lands and culture that he believes is being over-run
by his ‘enemy’
Even to the extent of running the Turks back across the straits to “where they belong and re-claim the continent of Europe.”
““In a manifesto being scrubbed from all corners of the web, Tarrant writes his political views most closely align with those of the People’s Republic of China, and that he does not support conservatism or US President Donald Trump.”
See my comment with the link near bottom here:
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/03/15/mass-shooting-in-christchurch-possible-white-supremacist-link/
The question is, given all the censorship, will there be a closed court?
Cheers.
Oh, there’s a difference? Please explain it to us. And which one are you?
I’m intrigued.
White supremacist? White nationalist?
So, you’re advocating for the white race Iain? Is that what you’re getting at?
Mate, you’re perilously close to shooting yourself in your racist foot, if you’re meaning what I think you’re meaning.
Tell us what you mean please.
Reply to both above.
We are talking about what HE believes.
Read the my post again, very slowly, for your answers.
Pretty obvious.
“The term should be ‘White Nationalist’ NOT ‘White Supremacist.’
Entirely two different things”
You copped out giving a direct honest answer to Samwise so I’ll put it this way:: there is NO DIFFERENCE between White Nationalism or White Supremacisy. Angels dancing on the head of a pin
Both are race based racist bullshit by racist alt-righties like yourself Iain
Discuss
Hunting in packs is a sign.
Comments are closed.