NZ supremacism selectively ignored

Guest Post
Last month Dame Susan Devoy, our Human Rights Commissioner, wrote an article about the neo-Nazi group who wanted to join the march against child abuse. She was strongly against the participation of the National Socialist wannabes because, “People wearing Nazi uniforms murdered 1.5 million children. They did it on purpose and they would have kept murdering children if they had not been stopped.”

Dame Susan was clear about her intentions saying, “I’ve written this article to help ensure that those children aren’t forgotten and to make it clear that neo-Nazi fascism and racism does not belong in Aotearoa New Zealand. This is not how we roll. This is not part of Kiwi culture and it does not belong in our future.” She was explicit that, “Some members of this organisation argue that they aren’t neo-Nazis but just white pride activists: I don’t really care what they call themselves … sometimes we need to stand up publicly and say that their philosophy is Not OK.”

SB showed how the philosophy of making one group more important than others is a socialist approach and introduced us to the world’s most well-known socialist who enacted the philosophy of supremacism. The Nazis thought the Aryan race was superior and such a philosophy is certainly not OK. Dame Susan is quite right to stand strongly against fascism and racism in New Zealand, especially as other leaders were silent.

While the white pride activists might have made a fuss by donning a fake Nazi uniform, there is another group in New Zealand who have similar ideas about being superior. In the deeds of some registered trusts, there is a clause that states, “The aims and objectives of the trust shall be to ensure that practical steps are taken to advance progress in the moral, material, social, economic, and cultural life of all Muslims affiliated to this trust with the main aim and objective of enabling them to attain and maintain their rightful and honoured place among the other races.”

screenshot from

screenshot from PDF





Let’s ignore the reality that Islam is a religion and not a race, for now. If “Muslims” was replaced with “whites”, the clause would read as if it were taken from the National Socialist manifesto. The philosophy is surely not OK and yet some New Zealand organisations have this clause or a minor variant as part of their written deeds. One of those organisations has been working very closely with the Human Rights Commission: The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand. The HRC has issued joint statements with this group and Dame Susan has said, “The Human Rights Commission stands alongside Muslim New Zealanders in their continued and uncompromising call for peace.”

It seems a gross double standard that our Race Relations Commissioner would be so strongly against white pride and so strongly supportive of Muslim pride. The Right Wing Resistance members hold signs at protests that read “Equal rights for NZ Whites” while FIANZ and other Islamic organisations have legal documents stating they believe Muslims have a right to an honoured place in New Zealand. One is the subject of criticism while the other is warmly embraced.

Will our Race Relations Commissioner speak out against all fascism/supremacism or only when it is from white Pakeha?


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • phronesis

    The problem begins with the redefinition of racism. Racism used to mean discrimination on the basis of race. Now it means whatever the Let wants it to. I have no problem with the excerpts from the trust deeds above. They are clearly racist because they discriminate on the basis of race. I have no problem with that as long as everyone else is allowed to discriminate on the basis of race as well.

    • Shalice

      My thoughts exactly.

    • NahYeah

      I wonder if a motorcycle “club” called “white power” would receive the same total lack of comment from the HRC as the current “black power” does?

    • Observer

      The cultural Marxist meaning is that only groups with ‘power’ can be racist. Obviously, this is ludicrous, because it treats groups (ie. whites) as a monolithic group who have special powers and oppress other groups. But this is what cultural Marxists believe. On this basis they rationalise other groups discriminating or openly advocating in the interests of their group, while condemning whites who do the same thing.

  • Really?

    Susan Devoy must suffer from one or more of being:
    a) riddled with white guilt (whatever that is)
    b) just plain biased or
    c) stupid.
    Can’t think of any other possible explanations why she chooses to hug and support one group and ignore their obvious flaws and attack a criticises another group who seem to have similar but lesser flaws than the first group.
    Compounding the problem is that the first group aren’t even a race, so I’m puzzled beyond belief why she feels she needs to intervene in any way.
    I suspect like a lot of government troughers, the last thing the Race Relations Commissioner wants is for there to be no race relations issues.
    So the real job of the Race Relations Commissioner is NOT to eliminate race relations issues, but to the contrary, they must instead find them EVERYWHERE they can.
    (Noting it doesn’t even matter if race is not involved).

    • Wayne Hodge

      I still fail to understand why Devoy was appointed. She seems to have no qualifications for the role. Her prognostications are not relevant.

      • Observer

        The alternative they had lined up was even worse. What qualifications can a person have for this kind of role anyway? Apart from majoring in some grievance mongering Cultural Marxist subject that inverts reality and blames everything on whites?

      • Boondecker

        Squash rackets are made in India, the rubber for squash balls come from Cameroon, the squash woman’s dress uniforms are made in China, the squash court floor boards are sourced from Vietnam, and the trophy silverware from the UK and the aircraft that transport squash players around the world are made in France, and the game of squash was invented in America. Squash players (those that are apparently good at it and may have played Susan Devoy) come from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, the UK, USA, Canada, France, Germany, Egypt, Malaysia, Netherlands and Spain.

        There. Squash will save the world. Squash is all the qualification you need.

      • OneTrack

        She obviously talked the talk in the job interview.

    • PersonOfColor:WHITE

      d) Political Correctness

      i.e. she is part of the leftist herd.

  • Duchess of Pork

    You’ve been beguiled by Muda’rat Dame Susan. Let the correct Quranic interpretation fix that for you: “The Human Rights Commission stands alongside Muslim New Zealanders in their continued and uncompromising call for submission [to Allah]”.

  • RG52

    It is total hypocrisy for the HRC to ban the right because Hitler murdered 1.5 million children but not ban the left when Stalin murdered at least 3 million children in the 32/33 purge in the Ukraine alone, and who knows how many others during his reign? How many children has Islam murdered or maimed in the last 100 years, and were they banned from the march against child abuse?

    What a ridiculous world this is becoming!

    • Ghost

      Not disagreeing with you, but Hitler was socialist, Germany was a socialist country. His politics fall well and truely into the left spectrum, only the modern narrative has cast Hitler as right wing as the left use this try and shut down diacussion.

  • sandalwood789

    Ok, so the Nazis murdered 1.5 million children.

    In the last 1400 years, Muslims have massacred around *270 million* people. What about *those* people? Do they not count in the world of Devoy? Has she forgotten them?

    Devoy says that the Nazi philosophy “is not OK”. What about the philosophy (ideology) of Islam? Given its blood-soaked history (and blood-soaked *current* behaviour), is *that* OK?

    If so – why? Why is one murderous ideology “ok” and another one “not ok”?

  • Eddie

    How does such a statement get approved by the charities office? We know Dame Fatimah Devoy is keen for Sharia Law but who was stamping those applications?