Ethnological arguments in Race Relations case

Press, 1 November 1979, Page 14

Ethnological arguments in Race Relations case

PA Wellington Dictionaries have figured prominently during legal argument in the Court of Appeal. .The Court was told that “ethnic” origins should not be ascribed to Jews, and counsel spent much of the day consulting dictionaries to define the word. The submission was made by Mr B. C. Nordgren on behalf of Durward Colin King-Ansell, aged 35, a printer. King - Ansell appeals against conviction on a charge that, with intent to incite ill-will against a group of people in New Zealand, namely Jews, on the grounds of their ethnic origins, he published a pamphlet purporting to be issued by the National Socialist Party of New Zealand.

The charge was laid under the Race Relations Act.

The Court, comprising Mr Justice Richmond (president), Mr Justice Woodhouse, and Mr Justice Richardson, reserved its decision.

In the grounds of appeal, Mr Nordgren argued that ethnic origins should not be ascribed to “Jews” because:

—Since Biblical times, ethnic had meant “gentile, heathen, pagan,” and had never applied to groups described as “Jews” or “Christians.” —The secondary meaning since about 1880, pertaining to race, did not apply, the Crown anthropologist having said that “Jews” were not a race or nation. A new meaning said to

encompass Jews as having common racial, cultural, religious. or linguistic characteristics was “American English.” Mr Nordgren contended that the American meaning should not be applied to encompass Jews because it was not shown in Oxford and British dictionaries when Parliament passed the Race Relations Act in 1971, nor was it common usage in New Zealand in 1971 or 1977.

Ascribing “ethnic” origins to Jews would mystify those citizens who used Oxford rather than American dictionaries to find the meaning of words, he said.

“The British meaning poses no dangers and also ensures even-handedness. Since both are of diverse colours and nationalities,

and are not a race or nation, neither Jewish groups as such nor Christian groups as such can be ‘ethnic’ groups," .Mr Nordgren submitted. "They must seek protection under other statutes, or in some capacity other than as Jews or Christians, just as others similarly placed must do —Buddhists, Communists, trade unionists.”

For the Crown, Mr R. G. P. Haines, citing several cases, said that the Court was not bound by definitions or illustrations to be found in dictionaries.

"English is spoken in the United States and Australia. One cannot just say you have to examine a British dictionary to find out from what source New Zealand Parliaments take their meaning,” Mr Haines said.