Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

Boggles

batgoat wrote: »

Meanwhile Blindjustice seems to primarily ignore the actual atrocity that occurred...

Cat Stevens is the real villain in all this.

Sand

Apparently theres a bit of a backlash against Jacinda Ardern. It seems shes been too successful at communicating a shared grief and empathy for the victims of the shooting and the revulsion of all New Zealanders to an attack on them all. Being a white woman, it's problematic to some progressives for her to be seen to represent the Muslim victims of the shooting. From this view, the victims might have been just as Kiwi as Ardern, but despite the shawl, Ardern is not just as Muslim as they are. It is disagreeable for her to represent them because she is white and she is not Muslim. Somehow I think that same writer would refuse to accept that Sadiq Khan (for example) could not represent all the inhabitants of London.

It is disturbing that the Guardian is giving voice to such divisive and extremist content.

Wibbs wrote: »

If I could thank your post more I would S. Though on one point:I'll lay a bet that there will be some angle invoked to have this trial in camera and it won't be public.

Yes, that's a possibility but I understand that the NZ judge can only remove the media if he argues that the evidence in the court would threaten the security or defence of New Zealand. That is a very high threshold for what is a lone wolf attack, and likely unnecessary.

The Breivik trial in Norway was held in open court, and he had 5 days to state his views as part of his defence. So it would communicate real doubt about the strength of their country for the New Zealand courts to do anything but the same. I suppose thought that its clear they have already communicated that with their futile banning of his manifesto. Anything is possible.

BattleCorp

Sand wrote: »

Yes, that's a possibility but I understand that the NZ judge can only remove the media if he argues that the evidence in the court would threaten the security or defence of New Zealand. That is a very high threshold for what is a lone wolf attack, and likely unnecessary.

The Breivik trial in Norway was held in open court, and he had 5 days to state his views as part of his defence. So it would communicate real doubt about the strength of their country for the New Zealand courts to do anything but the same. I suppose thought that its clear they have already communicated that with their futile banning of his manifesto. Anything is possible.

The media could should make a voluntary arrangement between themselves not to report anything that Tarrant says at his trial. Don't give the pr1ck a platform. Then his hatred would struggle to make it out of the courtroom.

Cookie_Monster

Sand wrote: »

Apparently theres a bit of a backlash against Jacinda Ardern. It seems shes been too successful at communicating a shared grief and empathy for the victims of the shooting and the revulsion of all New Zealanders to an attack on them all.

It because it's all she's got and its being used as a distraction from the various scandals within her government such as Kiwibuild, unruly and/or incompetent ministers, increasing jobless numbers, the growing gang issues, the P epidemic, the CGT implementation, lying about no new taxes and so on.
There are plenty of other real problems in NZ right now that are not being dealt with becuase she's too busy trying to publicise herself as caring and feeling and empathic instead of doing her job.

Boggles

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It because it's all she's got and its being used as a distraction from the various scandals within her government such as Kiwibuild, unruly and/or incompetent ministers, increasing jobless numbers, the growing gang issues, the P epidemic, the CGT implementation, lying about no new taxes and so on.
There are plenty of other real problems in NZ right now that are not being dealt with becuase she's too busy trying to publicise herself as caring and feeling and empathic instead of doing her job.

Every country has problems and "scandals"

But I'd suggest a mass execution of 50 people may deserve the leader of the countries attention and anything else may get pushed into the background temporarily.

If 50 people were slaughtered in Dublin do think the press would nail Leo for not focusing on whatever Irish scandal is hot that week.

No because that would be beyond stupid.

It's beyond creepy that the PM of New Zealand is getting more vilified than an actual racist cowardly mass murderer in some circles.

Yeah_Right

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It because it's all she's got and its being used as a distraction from the various scandals within her government such as Kiwibuild, unruly and/or incompetent ministers, increasing jobless numbers, the growing gang issues, the P epidemic, the CGT implementation, lying about no new taxes and so on.
There are plenty of other real problems in NZ right now that are not being dealt with becuase she's too busy trying to publicise herself as caring and feeling and empathic instead of doing her job.

Very true. I'm not a fan of the PM and her government. After a decade of success and growth under the previous government, her first term has just been an incompetent cluster****. And don't even get me started on her deputy, Winston Peters. I can't believe that scumbag is still in office. He is an example of why there should be some sort of intelligence test before people are allowed to vote.

Ardern has generally handled this crisis very well. Apart from knee-jerk gun law reform and the censorship. But that sort of stupidity is not surprising from this government. The harsh reality is that 50 people getting murdered is a tragedy but it was 3 weeks ago and she has a country of 5 million people to run. Its time to get on with it.

MrFresh

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It because it's all she's got and its being used as a distraction from the various scandals within her government such as Kiwibuild, unruly and/or incompetent ministers, increasing jobless numbers, the growing gang issues, the P epidemic, the CGT implementation, lying about no new taxes and so on.
There are plenty of other real problems in NZ right now that are not being dealt with becuase she's too busy trying to publicise herself as caring and feeling and empathic instead of doing her job.

I think the worst terrorist attack in 60 years and it's aftermath should be considered a real problem. If Theresa May was still talking about the Manchester bombing and meeting the victims you wouldn't be saying the same would you?

Wibbs

MrFresh wrote: »

If Theresa May was still talking about the Manchester bombing and meeting the victims you wouldn't be saying the same would you?

If she was wandering around wearing a crucifix and crossing herself encouraging others to do so out of solidarity with the victims, restricting areas of web access and bringing in kneejerk legislation, damned right I would.

MrFresh

Wibbs wrote: »

If she was wandering around wearing a crucifix and crossing herself encouraging others to do so out of solidarity with the victims, restricting areas of web access and bringing in kneejerk legislation, damned right I would.

So if she turns up at the annual memorial mass you'd have an issue?

riffmongous

Sand wrote: »

Apparently theres a bit of a backlash against Jacinda Ardern. It seems shes been too successful at communicating a shared grief and empathy for the victims of the shooting and the revulsion of all New Zealanders to an attack on them all. Being a white woman, it's problematic to some progressives for her to be seen to represent the Muslim victims of the shooting. From this view, the victims might have been just as Kiwi as Ardern, but despite the shawl, Ardern is not just as Muslim as they are. It is disagreeable for her to represent them because she is white and she is not Muslim. Somehow I think that same writer would refuse to accept that Sadiq Khan (for example) could not represent all the inhabitants of London.

It is disturbing that the Guardian is giving voice to such divisive and extremist content.

Absolute bull****, you've totally misrepresented her point to have a go, pathetic. That you want to use the tragedy for such ends is the only disturbing thing here

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

If she was wandering around wearing a crucifix and crossing herself encouraging others to do so out of solidarity with the victims,

She wouldn't have done that though would she?

The attack was at a concert arena not a place of worship. Be nonsensical in the extreme.

Wibbs wrote: »

restricting areas of web access and bringing in kneejerk legislation, damned right I would.

"Restricting Web Access" is a bit of a stretch.

But in the wake of the 2005 London bombings, the British Parliament did "kneejerk" legislation through which included criminalizing viewing, distributing certain material online.

I imagine you too were up in arms over that?

Manic Moran

The bill is making its way through parliament. Effectively bans all semi-auto rifles. https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/topics/all-current-topics/changing-new-zealand-s-gun-laws-expanding-the-types-of-firearms-that-are-banned-and-an-amnesty-on-surrendering-guns-to-police/ It seems semi-auto pistols are generally being left alone.

No word yet on how much current owners will be compensated, but the latest statements from the NZ govt are now that it will cost the taxpayer in excess of $300m. Since nobody knows how many firearms are out there, or how many will be turned in, its a pure guess and it’s going to be an interesting exercise.

Sand

riffmongous wrote: »

Absolute bull****, you've totally misrepresented her point to have a go, pathetic. That you want to use the tragedy for such ends is the only disturbing thing here

How did I misrepresent her point? The author references white people, white women, white men and Ardern specifically as a white woman 8 times in a short opinion piece. She in turn references Muslims 16 times in the piece. No other ethnic group be it Maori, African, Asian or otherwise is referenced at all.

The author clearly doesn't accept that Ardern and the victims were interchangeable, being all New Zealanders. To the extent she does reference New Zealand at all, it is to talk about 'New Zealand's Muslim community' or the 'Muslim community in New Zealand'. The author's point is very clear: It is problematic for a white New Zealand PM to represent the victims of a mass shooting in New Zealand when those victims are Muslim.

And for all your spluttering, the author acknowledges her view has drawn condemnation from others. She states it in the article. It is a divisive and extremist viewpoint, and the Guardian ought to be ashamed of giving it a platform. Ardern is the elected PM of New Zealand and she has every right, and indeed duty, to represent all of her fellow Kiwis without segregation or qualification.

Boggles wrote: »

"Restricting Web Access" is a bit of a stretch.

But in the wake of the 2005 London bombings, the British Parliament did "kneejerk" legislation through which included criminalizing viewing, distributing certain material online.

I imagine you too were up in arms over that?

I think its broadly accepted that the UK is hugely overreacting when teenagers in the UK are successfully prosecuted for quoting rap song lyrics on their social media and taking non-progressive positions on trans issues will lead to the police calling around for a chat.

WinnyThePoo

riffmongous wrote: »

Sand wrote: »

Apparently theres a bit of a backlash against Jacinda Ardern. It seems shes been too successful at communicating a shared grief and empathy for the victims of the shooting and the revulsion of all New Zealanders to an attack on them all. Being a white woman, it's problematic to some progressives for her to be seen to represent the Muslim victims of the shooting. From this view, the victims might have been just as Kiwi as Ardern, but despite the shawl, Ardern is not just as Muslim as they are. It is disagreeable for her to represent them because she is white and she is not Muslim. Somehow I think that same writer would refuse to accept that Sadiq Khan (for example) could not represent all the inhabitants of London.

It is disturbing that the Guardian is giving voice to such divisive and extremist content.

Absolute bull****, you've totally misrepresented her point to have a go, pathetic. That you want to use the tragedy for such ends is the only disturbing thing here

Par the course for some here though.

They can't have a go at the victims, so she's the target. To some her wearing a shawl and going to meet the communities effected is wrong.

Of course that ludicrous and stupid in an incredibly mean spirited way, to have that view.

mvl

Sand wrote: »

Ardern is the elected PM of New Zealand and she has every right, and indeed duty, to represent all of her fellow Kiwis without segregation or qualification.

but do we know how many of the victims had citizenship ?

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

To some her wearing a shawl and going to meet the communities effected is wrong.
Of course that ludicrous and stupid in an incredibly mean spirited way, to have that view.

Are you including here the iranian women's rights activist view about the PM wearing that shawl ? tbh, part of me thinks this is a valid point.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Every country has problems and "scandals"

But I'd suggest a mass execution of 50 people may deserve the leader of the countries attention and anything else may get pushed into the background temporarily.

If 50 people were slaughtered in Dublin do think the press would nail Leo for not focusing on whatever Irish scandal is hot that week.

No because that would be beyond stupid.

It's beyond creepy that the PM of New Zealand is getting more vilified than an actual racist cowardly mass murderer in some circles.

That might be because he's a bit of a hero to some, and sure what's the deaths of a few women and children to them when their Muslim.

Others don't like gun control and others don't like censorship

Personally I don't think censorship of certain sites will stop a lunatic like this from doing what they did and the dark net has plenty of sites to cater them anyway and its not like racisim and bigotry is something new since the internet. I don't think it's ever going away just hopefully more people see it for the BS it is and the rest just become the even lonelier crackpot.

Gun control makes it harder to happen but some people in Ireland seem to take on a very U.S. stance about it which I can't fathom unless they want the laws around gun ownership and control to somehow change in Ireland to be more like their U.S. and have to go off on one when ever another country begins tightening their laws.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

The bill is making its way through parliament. Effectively bans all semi-auto rifles. https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/topics/all-current-topics/changing-new-zealand-s-gun-laws-expanding-the-types-of-firearms-that-are-banned-and-an-amnesty-on-surrendering-guns-to-police/ It seems semi-auto pistols are generally being left alone.

It surprises me that they would ban one and not the other.

Manic Moran

kowloon wrote: »

It surprises me that they would ban one and not the other.

No different than Australia.

ohnonotgmail

mvl wrote: »

but do we know how many of the victims had citizenship ?

How is their citizenship relevant? they were lawful residents. The PM represents those as well.

Wibbs

Manic Moran wrote: »

No different than Australia.

That's so odd though, leaving pistols out of it. OK they don't have the range and accuracy in inexpert hands, but they're far easier to hide and transport and harder to get close enough to disarm someone with one and something like a pair of Beretta M9's with spare 10(?) round magazines would be capable of a lot of bloody murder in an enclosed space. Is there some historical "we've always done it this way" reason for it, or are pistols already harder to own and they figure the current laws are enough? Just doesn't make sense to me.

MrFresh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How is their citizenship relevant? they were lawful residents. The PM represents those as well.

Some people have to know a persons background before they can decide if they are a worthy victim.

ohnonotgmail

MrFresh wrote: »

Some people have to know a persons background before they can decide if they are a worthy victim.

Unfortunately this seems to be the case.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

No different than Australia.

It's still an unusual choice imo, I wonder what restrained them from banning pistols too.

Manic Moran

Wibbs wrote: »

That's so odd though, leaving pistols out of it. OK they don't have the range and accuracy in inexpert hands, but they're far easier to hide and transport and harder to get close enough to disarm someone with one and something like a pair of Beretta M9's with spare 10(?) round magazines would be capable of a lot of bloody murder in an enclosed space. Is there some historical "we've always done it this way" reason for it, or are pistols already harder to own and they figure the current laws are enough? Just doesn't make sense to me.

Far more difficult to disarm a person with a rifle.

However, otherwise, you are correct. Pistols are far and away the most commonly used firearm for criminal activity, to include spree shootings (in the US at least), but the rifles always garner the attention, especially the black rifles. Granted, recently they have been responsible for the highest per-incident tolls. And, yes, pistols can really rack up the toll in a confined space such as the Mosque... or a university. Yet, despite the fact that Cho killed 33 with a Glock 17, and despite Australia’s famous gun laws, the first shop that comes up in Google in Sydney has a selection of them available. https://www.horsleyparkgunshop.com.au/search/results/5cadf9274560e

Regulation on what is harder to own, a pistol or rifle, tends to vary by jurisdiction. This is not atypical for firearms laws, at the extreme end silencers vary from “utter evil” to “mandatory” depending on where you are. As a result, some jurisdictions have made the political choice to make pistols more accessible than rifles for whatever reason, others have taken the route of stricter licensing requirements. Ireland has chosen the latter route (basically a total ban these days), Australia (and apparently now New Zealand), the former. As near as I can tell, if a jurisdiction is more afraid of common criminal activity, they are more likely to restrict a pistol. If they are more afraid of spree shootings (or at least, the most recent spree shooting, I can't help but notice that the Dunblane shooting is carried out with a handgun: Result, ban on handguns in the UK. Christchurch shooting conducted with a semi-auto rifle: Result, ban on semi-auto rifles in New Zealand.), they are more likely to restrict a rifle..

Of course, the first question which comes to mind is “if the stricter licensing requirements for a pistol are sufficient to reduce the chances of a spree shooting, why not use the same licensing requirements for semi-auto rifles instead of banning them?

riffmongous

Hm, is self defense a legitimate reason to apply for a firearms license in these countries? If it is I can see pistols being kept as acceptable for this

Yeah_Right

riffmongous wrote: »

Hm, is self defense a legitimate reason to apply for a firearms license in these countries? If it is I can see pistols being kept as acceptable for this

Not in NZ. I remember some farmers getting charged over shootings when they fired on thieves on their property. I think some of them got away with it because even though they pretty much admitted firing at the bastards that were trying to steal their stuff, the juries either came back not guilty or hung jury.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, otherwise, you are correct. Pistols are far and away the most commonly used firearm for criminal activity, to...

Hence my surprise, but it makes sense if you ignore anything beyond the one incident that the laws are reacting to. I shouldn't expect legislators to put any thought into anything beyond putting out whatever burning issue is currently in the news.

As for the black rifles, I love this gem from Irish law:
“assault rifles” means—

(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,

(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

It is the thing if it looks like the thing. I have some valuable Ming vases to sell to these people.

Wibbs

I suppose K Ireland's case was maybe more to do with the Troubles? Where the idea of the "Armalite" was quite strong when a few of these laws came along. I remember going into Watt's(IIRC) gun and fishing shop in Dublin back in the early 80's and on sale for anyone with a licence for a .22 rifle was a pretty grim copy of an M-16* chambered for .22. So the law must have come in after that time. You could also buy crossbows without a licence then. Me and a few mates had them, even pistol sized ones(which were shite ). They're banned too now I think? No doubt a crossbow showed up in the news and got banned on the back of it, governments being reactive and often overreactive to such things.



*the Armalite company came up with the design originally and for a time M-16's were called Armalites in this part of the world anyway.

kowloon

You're correct Wibbs, the piece I quoted is from 2008, I believe.

mvl

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How is their citizenship relevant? they were lawful residents. The PM represents those as well.

But please don't take this out of context: my question was linked to a specific post I quoted "Ardern is the elected PM of New Zealand and she has every right, and indeed duty, to represent all of her fellow Kiwis without segregation or qualification.". It is maybe me being pedantic: being lawful resident does not equal to being Kiwi. And then, from a genuine question taken out of context can see a later poster making pejorative assumptions about what my question would mean - bit mad tbh.
Anyway, on the PMs decision to over wear that shawl - sounds to me the cloak suits her much better.

Cienciano

The bill passed

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47878042

ohnonotgmail

mvl wrote: »

But please don't take this out of context: my question was linked to a specific post I quoted "Ardern is the elected PM of New Zealand and she has every right, and indeed duty, to represent all of her fellow Kiwis without segregation or qualification.". It is maybe me being pedantic: being lawful resident does not equal to being Kiwi. And then, from a genuine question taken out of context can see a later poster making pejorative assumptions about what my question would mean - bit mad tbh.
Anyway, on the PMs decision to over wear that shawl - sounds to me the cloak suits her much better.

I didnt. You asked how many of them were citizens as if that was somehow relevant to how their PM would react. She would, and should, have reacted the same even if they were illegal immigrants.

mvl

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I didnt. You asked how many of them were citizens as if that was somehow relevant to how their PM would react. She would, and should, have reacted the same even if they were illegal immigrants.

Actually I didn't include in my question anything about how she should react based on the answer - this is your (very poor) interpretation of why I may have asked about citizenship. FYI, my question was just trying to find out how many kiwis are dead in that attack, in the context included with my question (as I quoted another poster saying this "PM must represent all of her fellow Kiwis without segregation or qualification" - as there are kiwi/Maori Muslims in NZ).
To have an idea of nationalities - some info is published here - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-victims/index.html
Besides, for any other tragic event with human casualties there would be statistical reports of individual nationalities. And some individuals prefer information organized this way, instead or focusing on religious background only - unless we are so PC not allowing this type of information here.
PS: Then on the relevance on any of my comments on this thread from the beginning: you can't assume anything about my links to NZ; but bravo for showing your nature in the post below: might be an undesired end for a thread that should have shown tolerance, compassion ...

ohnonotgmail

mvl wrote: »

Actually I didn't include in my question anything about how she should react based on the answer - this is your (very poor) interpretation of why I may have asked about citizenship. FYI, my question was just trying to find out how many kiwis are dead in that attack, in the context included with my question (as in ... this PM must represent all of her fellow Kiwis without segregation or qualification).

To have an idea of nationalities - some info is published here - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-victims/index.html

You decided to jump on part of a post "to represent all of her fellow Kiwis" to ask your irrelevant question. their nationality is irrelevant to the NZ PM and to the people of NZ. The only person who thinks it is in some way relevant is you.

Gael23

He has pleaded not guilty

Thrashssacre

Gael23 wrote: »

He has pleaded not guilty

He’s ****ed either way. He’s just doing it to drag out his time in the limelight and as per usual the media are playing ball. He’s headline news worldwide yet again.

_blaaz

Gael23 wrote: »

He has pleaded not guilty

Why like....he literally live streamed it

Noo

Thrashssacre wrote: »

He’s ****ed either way. He’s just doing it to drag out his time in the limelight and as per usual the media are playing ball. He’s headline news worldwide yet again.

I dont know the ins and outs of the laws in nz but in the very least a not guilty plea will remove any leniency in his sentence when he is inevidently found guilty (not that there should be any leniency for this barbaric act regardless of his plea, but you just never know).

Gael23

Noo wrote: »

I dont know the ins and outs of the laws in nz but in the very least a not guilty plea will remove any leniency in his sentence when he is inevidently found guilty (not that there should be any leniency for this barbaric act regardless of his plea, but you just never know).

Life without parole in solitary confinement?

Muahahaha

I suppose when you are facing life in prison you might as well plead not guilty, you've nothing to lose anyway and theres the slim hope that the trial might collapse on a technicality. Same with Boy A at the moment, despite overwhelming blood and DNA evidence he still pled not guilty.

Noo

Muahahaha wrote: »

I suppose when you are facing life in prison you might as well plead not guilty, you've nothing to lose anyway and theres the slim hope that the trial might collapse on a technicality. Same with Boy A at the moment, despite overwhelming blood and DNA evidence he still pled not guilty.

This is just purely my opinion, no one has to agree....but in that case I dont think boy understands the consequences/difference of a guilty or not guilty plead, no matter how much his lawyers/parents would have explained it to him, being a kid I'd imagine he'll deny any involvement not matter what evidence, like any lying child.

Walter Bishop

_blaaz wrote: »

Why like....he literally live streamed it

He gets some extra time in the glare of publicity if there's a trial.

_blaaz

Walter Bishop wrote: »

He gets some extra time in the glare of publicity if there's a trial.

Can a judge not just order reporting restrictions?

Walter Bishop

Probably, and his face has been blurred in any court photo I've seen so I assume that is a thing in New Zealand. Hopefully he gets as little extra coverage as possible from this however he does indeed have nothing to lose by pleading not guilty so he may as well.

Danzy

Brenton Tarrant trial to start May 2020.

Gael23

Brenton Tarrant has been sentenced to life without the possibility of release

BattleCorp

Gael23 wrote: »

Brenton Tarrant has been sentenced to life without the possibility of release

There wasn't really going to be any other outcome.

Is there any word on where his sentence will be served? No doubt it will cost a ridiculous amount of money to the NZ taxpayer. Hopefully there's a way he can be sent back to Aussie to rot.

BattleCorp

Basil3 wrote: »

Is there any word on where his sentence will be served? No doubt it will cost a ridiculous amount of money to the NZ taxpayer. Hopefully there's a way he can be sent back to Aussie to rot.

Why would Oz take him? He's not their problem.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why would Oz take him? He's not their problem.

It's not uncommon for prisoners to be transferred to their country of citizenship, AFAIK, possibly through a prisoner exchange or something.