NZ’s place in global white supremacy

The headline from the New York Daily News on May 15 was ‘‘Buffalo shooter was radicalized by New Zealand mosque shooter’’. The report went on to point to the role of online radical white supremacist (and antiSemitic) sites in the radicalisation of the shooter – and the particular influence of the Christchurch terrorist.

Both aspects are explicitly acknowledged by the Buffalo shooter in an online document. It confirms – yet again – the significance of online platforms and activism in perpetuating an international extremist ecosystem, along with the significance of the Christchurch shootings as an ‘‘inspiration’’ for other extremists.

That white supremacist lexicon typically starts with the Norwegian mass shootings, and then references Charleston (2015, anti-black), Pittsburgh (2018, antisemitic) before Christchurch and El Paso (both in 2019, one targeting Muslims, the other Latinos), then Poway (2019, antisemitic) and now Buffalo (antiblack) in 2022.

The ‘‘why’’ is clear enough. Like the Christchurch shooter, we have an extensive document that details the racist, anti-semitic and white supremacy views of the Buffalo shooter. There are the same or similar messages on the firearm which repeat those on the Christchurch shooter’s weapon.

Local and international research indicates that the volume and intensity of this white supremacist ideology and activism has increased significantly in the last three years. Increasingly, the ‘‘how’’ of this extremism – how individuals get recruited and radicalised – has also become more obvious. The role of online platforms, especially those that advertise themselves as free speech absolutists or ‘‘politically incorrect’’, is not in doubt. The Christchurch terrorist used Facebook and 8chan. The Buffalo terrorist used Twitch.

But reducing the risk of such extremism in our communities by taking active measures to combat white supremacism online is still very much a work in progress. As the Anti-Defamation League points out: ‘‘…these platforms serve as round-theclock white supremacist rallies, amplifying and fulfilling their vitriolic fantasies’’.

One challenge is deplatforming. The willingness and effectiveness of online platforms to self-moderate or act remains a challenge. Even platforms such as Twitter, which has adopted policies on the ‘‘perpetrators of terrorist, violent extremist, or mass violent attacks’’, still struggle to remove material immediately or to stop uploads to other sites.

In the Buffalo shooting, it was livestreamed to Twitch (an Amazon-owned gaming platform) and while it was removed within two minutes, it had already been circulated. And Twitter has acknowledged that sharing some of the material in order to condemn extremism might not be a ‘‘policy violation’’. Given the international nature of these platforms, agreement and action at a global level is required.

In addition, there are also the actions taken by particular countries. In New Zealand’s case, we are still waiting for the legislation on hate speech to be considered and passed by Parliament. All the signs are that it will be both publicly contentious and divisive, given existing political disagreement on the significance of hate speech. There remain questions about the threshold in terms of what constitutes hate speech (and therefore how to preserve free speech) and who makes the determination.

It is arguable, but the proposed new legislation actually increases the threshold (the requirement that there be ‘‘intentional incitement’’ rather than ‘‘inciting ridicule or ill-will’’). Moreover, much of what constitutes the rationale for white supremacy, such as the ‘‘Great Replacement’’ (the belief that white people are being replaced by Muslims, people from Africa or the Middle East), would still not breach any of the existing or proposed legislation.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch attack pointed to the need to address questions of social cohesion. Good idea, but what constitutes social cohesion in contemporary Aotearoa/New Zealand? And how do we increase trust and inclusiveness?

There is the matter of the role and resourcing of communities, both those targeted by white supremacy and those that might provide extremists. In the first case, the trust of targeted communities in government process, or the willingness of government departments and agencies to work with these communities is still problematic. In the second, we really do need to provide those communities with better guidance on how to recognise the signs of extremist behaviour and recruitment – and then to provide strategies to counter extremism in context. The Royal Commission talked of a ‘‘see something, say something’’ approach. But that requires knowing what to look for.

We have options available to us; the barrier seems to be political will and agreement.

ABC News noted in 2019 that ‘‘…Christchurch seems to be gaining ground as a political symbol, as the racist views espoused by the man charged with the killing . . . continue to resonate with white supremacists half a world away [in the USA]’’. Three years on, and with Buffalo fresh in our minds, we really do need to do more to reduce the presence and appeal of white supremacy, here in Aotearoa and globally. Doing nothing, or little, is simply not an option.

Distinguished Professor Emeritus Paul Spoonley (Massey University) is co-editor of a forthcoming book, Histories of Hate : The Radical Right in Aotearoa New Zealand (Otago University Press).