Recognise racism before we can put things right

‘This is not us.’’ It is the defining phrase of the attack on the Christchurch mosques. Ironically, it is also the cause of sharp disagreement over who we are as a nation.

Some people say that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s words are literally true, that New Zealand is a tolerant, welcoming society. This terrorist event was committed by an outsider, by a citizen of Australia, and not by us.

Others say this is not true, that New Zealand has intolerance too, if not so spectacularly violent then at least on the same spectrum. Over recent weeks, New Zealanders of non-European and migrant backgrounds have shared their experiences of racism and discrimination over their lifetimes.

So, is this us, or not us? An unfortunate defect of the prime minister’s comment is that it encourages this either/or framing. Actually, both things can be true.

There is tolerance and intolerance in New Zealand. There is hospitality and manaakitanga, and there is racism and xenophobia. There are the New Zealanders who delivered flowers and memorials to the Masjid Al Noor, and then there is the man in the ‘‘Trump for New Zealand’’ shirt who desecrated the same site earlier this month.

This is borne out by the data. Yet in interpreting the data, the pull toward a simpler, more comforting vision appears to be irresistible.

Simon Chapple, director of the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, recently analysed the General Social Survey data on discrimination. It reveals that 16.5 per cent of NZ-born people reported discrimination in the April 2016-April 2017 period, whereas 25.7 per cent of recent migrants did. Chapple notes that ‘‘excess discrimination experienced by minority groups defined by migrant status and ethnic category clearly exists in New Zealand’’. Yet he concludes that discrimination ‘‘is not the experience of a large majority of New Zealanders from any of these groups’’.

Is this quite right? The survey asks if people

experienced discrimination in the last 12 months. Chapple’s conclusion only really holds if those who experience discrimination one year are the same who experience it every other year.

The polar opposite conclusion is that all recent migrants experience discrimination over a fouryear period, because, if discrimination were perfectly evenly distributed, each recent migrant has a 25.7 per cent chance of discrimination in any given year. Of course, this is unlikely, but the underlying assumption is hardly less unrealistic than Chapple’s.

More likely, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Some recent migrants will face recurring discrimination, others less frequently, others may avoid it entirely. Many factors could account for such variance, but the most obvious is one’s perceived identity. Yet this is another factor that Chapple slides over.

Consider that, in the year to April 2017, permanent and long-term arrivals from Australia, Europe and the United States constituted about half of all arrivals. Due to these countries’ population makeup, it is safe to assume that most – not all, but most – would not experience negative racial discrimination because they are white.

This, in turn, implies migrants from Asia, the Pacific, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East face relatively higher rates of discrimination. For an analysis of racial discrimination, the important differences are obscured by the group average.

What I hear is that New Zealand is in denial of the racism and intolerance that it does have, no matter how large or small.

What Chapple denies is that ‘‘New Zealand is a highly intolerant and discriminatory society’’. No worries – this is easy to disbelieve. Yet when I listen to the testimonies of Muslim New Zealanders in recent weeks, this isn’t what I hear. What I hear is that New Zealand is in denial of the racism and intolerance that it does have, no matter how large or small. Given its lifelong effects, and its implications for economic inequality and democratic participation, this is an injustice that should be squarely faced.

Similarly, when I hear the prime minister’s words, ‘‘This is not us’’, I do not hear this as literal denial. I hear it as a wish, an aspiration, a declaration of national values. This should not happen here. This is not how we define ourselves.

This isn’t to say that discrimination doesn’t exist here, or hasn’t in the past. On the contrary, as the prime minister affirmed in her speech to the National Remembrance Service, ‘‘Racism exists, but it is not welcome here.’’

This was a significant acknowledgement to the Muslim community – and to others too. Because part of aspiring to be a better society is being honest about what’s not right.