page break

Chapter XXXII
"The Jewish People are Our Best People"

Hardly had the war concluded when the virulent virus of anti-semitism appeared in a violent, ugly form. It almost seemed as though the ideologies for which the war had been fought had lost all meaning, and that the sacrifice, the blood and the toil had all been in vain. The thoughtlessness with which the startling, unwarranted attack was made, added to the sadness of the source from which it originated. At the Annual Conference of the New Zealand Returned Servicemen's Association, the meeting passed a resolution: "That any person or persons who arrived in New Zealand from Germany, Austria, Hungary or Italy since 1939, must return to their own countries within two years after hostilities with Germany have ceased, and that they be allowed to take out of New Zealand the same amount of money or property, or both, that they declared to the Customs Department on entering New Zealand. Any further money or property that they possess to be realized and the proceeds handed to the New Zealand Government for distribution amongst needy wives and dependants of those who fought while the enemy aliens enjoyed peace and plenty in New Zealand."

The resolution called forth widespread condemnation, and on the return of the Rt Hon. Peter Fraser from San Francisco, he expressed his unqualified disapproval of the display of racial hatred. The Standard, in a leader, condemned some press reports and certain sections of the New Zealand Returned Servicemen's Association. The New Zealand Herald affirmed that refugees had assisted in rehabilitation by their industry, and had promoted the country's general prosperity. Confiscation and deportation were the very methods of a totalitarian state, for the defeat of which the young nation had contributed its blood and treasure. "All this is not to gainsay," continued the article, "that some refugees have adopted manners and methods most distasteful to this country. They must learn our ways and adopt our standards. But it would be deplorable if the faults of a few should cause the ugly head of intolerance and anti-semitism to be raised in the Dominion." In spite of the newspaper's suggestion that some refugees had misbehaved, records divulge that the refugees belonging to the Jewish community had a remarkably clean record, and standards of which New Zealand could be proud.

page 233

In the following year, the New Zealand Returned Servicemen's Association amended its resolution regarding aliens which it declared had been drawn up in haste. Many of the delegates displayed the courage they had shown on the battlefield by openly declaring the sense of shame they felt in not opposing the original motion more resolutely. After the introduction of a face-saving motion, the matter closed.

Although the incident helped the public to formulate its opinion about anti-semitism and intolerance, it did not stop the evil altogether. A resolution from the Otago Branch of the British Medical Association to deport refugee doctors was overwhelmingly defeated by thirty votes to one. Some press comment was as hateful and prejudiced as before. Undisclosed organizations still published the false Protocols of Zion. Anti-semitic literature came into the country from Stockholm. The Swedish Legation notified the public that a special law had to be introduced in Sweden, in 1949, against the fanatical sender of the literature, Dr Amberg. The "Lex Amberg" made it a criminal offence for any person to attack a group or religion. During the Palestinian troubles, anti-Jewish slogans appeared on walls in Auckland. Against the distorted anti-semitic literature which appeared in some more respectable and responsible publications, the New Zealand Zionist Council issued a pamphlet entitled Out of the Depths, which it distributed to every householder throughout the country. It also published a pamphlet, Speaking Candidly Indeed, refuting the warped charges quoted in a book called Speaking Candidly. Sections of the Returned Servicemen's Association still persisted with their folly, and published in its journal, Review, an ungenerous article by an ungenerous gentleman, who, writing of his experiences in the Middle East, referred in uncontrolled language to the Jews of Irael as "the scum of the earth". If any section of New Zealand should have been gracious towards the Jews, it should have been the returned soldiers. During the war the people of Israel extended warm-hearted and sincere hospitality to the New Zealand serving men and women.

The persistent undercurrent of veiled animosity in the propaganda against Jews, led G. A. F. Knight to conclude a pamphlet on the Jews and New Zealand in the following terms: "I have only lived a year in New Zealand. But, already I am struck by two things in connection with the subject in hand. First, I find men and women in this the Antipodes of Nazi Europe who have never met a Jew but who know all the Nazi half-truths about the Jews by heart." He was also struck with the emptiness of New Zealand in comparison with Palestine, which could only take at most, two or three millions.

Although the largest portion of the New Zealand public may have been opposed to racial discrimination, the anti-semites did achieve their aims in some official governmental quarters, especially in the departments con- page 234 nected with immigration. When displaced persons from the concentration camps sought refuge after the war in democratic countries, the Jewish communities of New Zealand in union submitted a memorandum to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Dominion Population, urging an increase of the number of permits allowed to the remnants of European Jewry. It claimed that whilst understanding the Government's requirements, a larger Jewish population than the 0 • 2 per cent then in the country could easily be absorbed and would give purpose to a constructive immigration policy. Apart from spiritual grounds, and for the sake of humanity, it requested entry especially for those who had a family in New Zealand and for skilled tradesmen. The memorandum pointed out the usefulness of the Jewish refugees who had entered the country before the war.

If the Government wanted proof of the statement, it was available on sight. The Jewish refugees had made a definite contribution to the prosperity of the country. Even in farming, which anti-semites claimed Jews would never undertake, the refugees had succeeded. Two Jewish brothers, Faulweiler, built a farm at Clarendon, south of Dunedin, which agricultural experts consider a model of its kind. K. Haas, a Mangamutu farmer, and his wife, pioneered the passion-fruit pulp industry. Woolf Apt, a Pukekepia dairy farmer, evolved a new method, which is now widely used, of making ensilage for feeding cattle.

Mrs O. S. Heymann, a devoted, energetic worker on behalf of displaced persons, who had ties with the Joint Distribution Committee of America and the European organizations H.I.A.S. and O.R.T., reported to the Inter-Church Council of New Zealand that the Government would allow Jewish people only 120 permits out of the 588 requested. Accommodation had to be available, and a guarantee that they would not be a burden on the State. They were granted only to near relatives. Although later the Government allowed about another 200 permits for close relatives, Jews did not come out to New Zealand in proportion to their numbers. Ukrainians, Poles and Germans, received preference over the poor suffering victims of Nazi and anti-semitic cruelty. Under the auspices of the International Relief Organization, they migrated to New Zealand with little trouble and without the qualification of nomination by a relative, whilst the Jews had to undergo unaccountable difficulties. Many difficulties were placed in their way to prevent them coming out to New Zealand. In New Zealand itself, relatives experienced increasing difficulties in obtaining entry permits for their loved ones who had ecaped from the European holocaust. As the pressure from the displaced persons camps eased, it became more difficult for a Jew from Europe to pass through the Customs than for the proverbial camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Applications were refused without explanation. Official quarters denied prejudice, but refusals and figures spoke for them- page 235 selves. So noticeable did the attitude of the authorities become, that the Jewish Welfare and Relief Committee asked the Chief Rabbi, when he came out on a visit to the country, to use his influence with the Government to prevent discrimination against Jews wishing to emigrate to New Zealand.

Another serious discriminatory aspect revealed itself when immigration officials implemented a regulation which required a landing permit from anyone not Rritish born, not of European race or colour, or whose parents were not British. Never in any other part of the British Commonwealth was a born Briton prevented from entering a British country because of his foreign parentage. It had a grossly unjust effect upon Jews born in England whose parents came from Europe and who desired to migrate to New Zealand. The ridiculous harshness of the regulation was also implemented against naturalized New Zealanders who, if they left the country even for a short period on business or pleasure, could not return to New Zealand without a re-entry landing permit.

Certain permanent immigration officials and persons controlling immigration for the Government, displayed definite anti-semitic prejudices in regard to the entry of Jews into the country. No better example can be given than the case of Heinz Heymann, a German refugee who had escaped to England. He joined the British forces as a volunteer in 1939, and had fought throughout the war, including the battle of Dunkirk and the invasion of Normandy. After the war he became a British subject by naturalization, and applied for a permit to immigrate to New Zealand where his wife's parents lived. In spite of the fact that Heinz Heymann had an admittedly unimpeachable character, the Minister for Immigration, the Hon. W. Sullivan, refused him a permit on the grounds that "our present policy does not provide for the admission of persons falling within this category". When it was alleged that the phrase had no meaning except to prevent Jews entering New Zealand, no satisfactory reply could be gained. All representations from highly reputable citizens did not avail.

When the Hon. W. H. Fortune wrote requesting an explanation, and remarked that the Jewish community was seething with discontent over the apparent discrimination against intending immigrants of Jewish origin, and that the Heymann case had caused bitterness, he received a remarkable reply. It stated: (1) Persons of British birth and parentage could enter New Zealand. There was no discrimination. (2) Persons not wholly of British birth and parentage must apply for entry permits which the Government could grant at its discretion. (3) Such applications, if made by persons of the Jewish race, are decided according to the nationality and national origin of the applicant. In other words, there is no discrimination in such cases either for or against Jews as such, and their applications are considered according to the criterion usually applied to the same nationality and national origin.

page 236

(4) When the application is by a German or Austrian who is also a Jew, regard must be had to the fact that the applicant now has in Israel a national home to which he should be able to go.

If any immigration policy had an anti-semitic stamp it was the one outlined by the Minister himself. According to his policy, all Sullivans should return to or remain in Ireland because the Irish now have Eire. All alien immigrants have national homes.

Further representations to the Minister had no effect. War service, and the fact that Mrs Heymann's parents lived in New Zealand, simply did not count. When asked by a newspaper why no reason was given for refusal of permits that had been sponsored, he replied that experience had shown it was not desirable, in the public interest, to give reasons for the refusal to grant entry permits.

After further long correspondence in which the Minister was accused of making a farce of the naturalization ceremony and damaging the good name of New Zealand, Heymann was granted a permit on condition he would go to work where directed by the Government. He refused to accept these terms.

Only near the close of 1955 did the Government remove the unusual regulation of requiring Britons of foreign parentage to possess landing permits. Nevertheless, even after the abolition of the regulation, some highhanded officials annoyed Jews entering the country who came under this category.

Jewish immigration to New Zealand from Europe, never large, has altogether ceased. The Jews have found other havens. A new influx of members of the Jewish faith into the country would have been an asset to New Zealand just as the Jews have formerly been to the country. They have a unique record. The prevention of their entry into New Zealand on a larger scale is a tragedy for New Zealand herself. A country which has introduced so many democratic innovations, renowned for its love of freedom and equality amongst all sections of the community, and which has solved its own racial problem between pakeha and Maori in an unprecedentedly successful fashion, would not have been expected to be influenced by the doctrines of Nazism and the effects of its propaganda. That other democratic nations fell for the same cult is no genuine excuse for a people which prides itself upon its independence of thought. History has its lessons to teach. When totalitarian ideas and practice enter governmental policy and attitudes, demoralization can easily set in. Step by step, oppression can pass from section to section of the community. Nations, like ordinary men, may learn from their errors. Perhaps those who may guide New Zealand's fortunes in the future will benefit from the lessons which history has taught. One message is very clear. The Jews in New Zealand have added to its progress and prosperity.

page 237

The Jewish communities need the influx of new blood to strengthen their waning religious and spiritual forces. For the past century, European Jewry has been the source from which Jewries elsewhere received transfusions of energy and the urge to seek loftier horizons. Little fresh infusion has come during the last few years, and none can be expected in the future. New Zealand communities will have to rely upon their own resources. Without efficient and sufficient lay and clerical religious leaders, the communities can slowly disappear through atrophy and assimilation. The process has already set in.

Nevertheless, Jewish resilience is intrinsically strong. It has remarkable powers of recovery. Because of its isolated situation, far from the centres of world Jewry, New Zealand Jewry may suddenly revive with the realization that it has to provide its own educators and its own machinery to fulfil its Jewish destiny and its responsibilities of citizenship. From its very midst young men and women may arise, as they have in the past, inspired with the spirit of the ancient Jewish faith and its philosophy and ideals, with its teachings of righteousness and justice, of mercy and love, and of wisdom combined with knowledge.

The Jews of New Zealand have a great and noble tradition to follow. It is twofold. They have the tradition of their own religion, which has survived thousands of generations in spite of all outrages and ungodly attacks made upon it. It has survived because of its truth and because of its people's sustaining that truth. They also have the tradition which New Zealand Jewry itself has created. It has been succinctly phrased by the Rt Hon. Peter Fraser himself: "You have contributed to its uprising, to the development of the pioneering work in every sphere—industrial, commercial, legal and in the worlds of culture and art, a great contribution—and will continue to give that. May our mountains ever be freedom's ramparts on the sea. The Jewish people are our best people."

page break