The Enemy Within, by Maire Leadbeater is many things. It is:

• A family history
• A social history
• A history of the left-wing in Aotearoa
• A chilling reminder of the origin and continuation of the surveillance state in New Zealand, and
• A damn good read.

The book is a great example of citizen or activist authorship. The author, Maire Leadbeater, and her family are front and centre of the dark cloud of the surveillance state that has hung and still hangs over New Zealand’s “democracy”.

What better place to begin the book than the author noting that she had been spied on by the security services from the age of 10. What better place to begin than describing the role of the Locke family — Elsie, Jack, Maire, Keith and their siblings — have played in Aotearoa society over the last few decades.

And what a fitting way to end the book than with the final chapter entitled, “Person of Interest: Keith Locke”; Maire’s much-loved brother and our much-loved friend and comrade.

In between these pages is a treasure trove of commentary and stories of the development of the surveillance state in the settler colony of NZ and the impact that this has had on the lives of ordinary — no, extra-ordinary — people within this country.

The book could almost be described as a political romp from the settler colonisation of New Zealand through the growth of the workers movement and socialist and communist ideology from the late 1800s until today.

I have often deprecatingly called myself a mere footnote of history as that is all I seem to appear as in many books written about recent progressive history in New Zealand. But it was without false modesty that when Maire gave me a copy of the book a couple of weeks back, I immediately went to the index, looked up my name and found that this time I was a bit more than a footnote, but had a section of a chapter written on my interaction with the spooks.

But it was after reading this, dipping into a couple of other “person of interest” stories of people I knew such as Keith, Mike Treen, the Rosenbergs, Murray Horton and then starting the book again from the beginning did it become clear on what issues the state was paranoid about that led it to build an apparatus to spy on its own citizens.

These were issues of peace, anti-conscription, anti-nuclear, decolonisation, unemployed workers and left trade unionism and socialist and communist thought. These are the issues that come up time and time again; essentially it was seditious or subversive to be part of any of these campaigns or ideologies.

Client state spying
The other common theme through the book is the role that the UK and more latterly the US has played in ensuring that their NZ client settler state plays by their rules, makes enemies of their enemies and spies on its own people for their “benefit”.

It was interesting to read how the “5 Eyes”, although not using that name, has been in operation as long as NZ has had a spying apparatus. In fact, the book shows that 3 of the 5 Eyes forced NZ to establish its surveillance apparatus in the first place.

Maire, and her editor have arranged this book in a very reader friendly way. It is mostly chronological showing the rise of the surveillance state from the beginning of the 19th century, in dispersed with a series of vignettes of “Persons of Interest”.

Maire would probably acknowledge that this book could not have been written without the decision of the SIS to start releasing files (all beit they were heavily redacted with many missing parts) of many of us who have been spied on by the SIS over the years. So, on behalf of Maire, thank you SIS.

Maire has painstakingly gone through pages and pages of these primary source files and incorporated them into the historical narrative of the book showing what was happening in society while this surveillance was taking place.

I was especially delighted to read the history of the anti-war and conscientious objectors movement. Two years ago, almost to the day, we held the 50th anniversary of the Organisation to Halt Military Service (OHMS); an organisation that I founded and was under heavy surveillance in 1972.

We knew a bit about previous anti-conscription struggles but Maire has provided much more context and information that we knew. It was good to read about people like John Charters, Ormand Burton and Archie Barrington as well more known resisters such as my great uncle Archibald Baxter.

Within living memory
Many of the events covered take place within my living memory. But it was wonderful to be reminded of some things I had forgotten about or to find some new gems of information about our past.

Stories around Bill Sutch, Shirley Smith, Ann and Wolfgang Rosenberg, Jack and Mary Woodward, Gerald O’Brien, Allan Brash (yes, Don’s dad), Cecil Holmes, Jack Lewin are documented as well as my contemporaries such as Don Carson, David Small, Aziz Choudry, Trevor Richards, Jane Kelsey, Nicky Hager, Owen Wilkes, Tame Iti in addition to Maire, Keith and Mike Treen.

The book finishes with a more recent history of NZ again aping the US’s so-called war on terror with the introduction of an anti and counter-terrorism mandate for the SIS and its sister agencies

The book traverses events such as the detention of Ahmed Zaoui, the raid on the Kim Dotcom mansion, the privatisation of spying to firms such as Thomson and Clark, the Urewera raids, “Hit and Run” in Afghanistan. Missing the cut was the recent police raid and removal of the computer of octogenarian, Peter Wilson for holding money earmarked for a development project in DPRK (North Korea).

When we come to the end of the book we are reminded of the horrific Christchurch mosque attack and massacre and prior to that of the bombing of Wellington Trades Hall and the Rainbow Warrior. Also, the failure of the SIS to discover Mossad agents operating in NZ on fake passports.

We cannot but ask the question of why multi-millions of dollars have been spent spying on, surveilling and monitoring peace activists, trade unionists, communists, Māori and more latterly Muslims, when the terrorism that NZ has faced has been that perpetrated on these people not by these people.

Maire notes in the book that the SIS budget for 2021 was around $100 million with around 400 FTEs employed. This does not include GCSB or other parts of the security apparatus.

Seeking subversives in wrong places
This level of money has been spent for well over 100 years looking for subversives and terrorists in the wrong place!

Finally, although dealing with the human cost of the surveillance state, the book touches on some of the lighter sides of the SIS spying. Those of us under surveillance in the 1970s and 1980s remember the amateurish phone tapping that went on at that time.

Also, the men in cars with cameras sitting outside our flats for days on end. Not in the book, but I have one memory of such a man with a camera in a car outside our flat in Wallace Street, Wellington.

After a few days some of my flatmates took pity on him and made him a batch of scones which they passed through the window of his car. He stayed for a bit longer that day but we never saw him or an alternate again.

Another issue the book picks up is the obsession that the SIS and its foreign counterparts had with counting communists in NZ. I remember that the CIA used to put out a Communist Yearbook that described and attempted to count how many members were in each of the communist parties all around the world.

In NZ, my party, the Workers Communist League, was smaller than the SUP, CPNZ and SAL, but one year near the end of our existence we were pleasantly surprised to see that the CIA had almost to a person, doubled our membership.

We could not work out why, until we realised that we all had code names as well as real names and we were getting more and more slack at using the correct one in the correct place. Anyone surveilling us, counting names, would have counted double the names that we had as members! We took the compliment.

Thank you, Maire, for this great book. Thank you and your family for your great contribution to Aotearoa society.

Hopefully the hardships and human cost that you have shown in this book will commit or recommit the rest of us to struggle for a decolonised and socialist Aotearoa within a peaceful and multi-polar world.

And as one of Jack Locke’s political guides said: “the road may be long and torturous, but the future is bright.”

Robert Reid has more than 40 years’ experience in trade unions and in community employment development in Aotearoa New Zealand. He is a former general secretary and president of FIRST Union. Much of his work has been with disadvantaged groups and this has included work with Māori, Pacific peoples and migrant communities. This was his address tonight for the launch of The Enemy Within: The Human Cost of State Surveillance in Aotearoa New Zealand, by Maire Leadbeater.

As our research has previously revealed, the man who attacked two mosques in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, killing 51 people, posted publicly online for five years before his terrorist atrocity.

Here we provide further information about Brenton Tarrant’s posting. This article has two main goals.

First, by placing his online posting against his other online and offline activities, we gain a far more complete picture of the path to his attack.

• READ MORE: Christchurch terrorist discussed attacks online a year before carrying them out, new research reveals
• The road to March 15: ‘networked white rage’ and the Christchurch terror attacks
• Can ideology-detecting algorithms catch online extremism before it takes hold?

Second, we want to show how his online community played a role in his radicalisation. This is important, as the same can happen to others immersed in that community.

In combining his online and offline activity here we do not seek to attribute blame to those who might have been expected to detect this behaviour. It is exceptionally difficult to identify terrorists online.

And yet, history is full of difficult problems that have been overcome. We use the benefit of hindsight to provide greater understanding of Tarrant’s pathway than has previously been available.

The aim is to prevent similar attacks by better understanding how such people act and how they might be detected.

Words and deeds
In the timeline below, we focus on Tarrant’s activity in 2018, following his first visit to Dunedin’s Bruce Rifle Club on December 14 2017, until his final overseas trip in October. It is for this period that we have the most comprehensive online posting history.

In 2024, we have both the benefit of hindsight and the accumulation of information relating to the attack. However, this triangulation of online and offline activities illustrates the ways those contemplating terrorist violence might act.

We can now see, for example, that Tarrant bought high-powered firearms on three occasions over a six-week period in March and April 2018. And he posted publicly twice on the online imageboard 4chan about his plans for racially motivated violence, and his veneration of a perpetrator of a similar attack.

Tarrant therefore not only “leaked” his plans for violence, he did so at the very moment he was buying weapons for it.

Over 20 days in July and August, Tarrant presented to hospital with gunshot wounds, and began selling weapons online under the username Mannerheim (the name of a Finnish nationalist leader revered for defeating the communists in the country’s civil war).

He also posted publicly about his anger at the presence of mosques in South Island cities (claiming one had replaced a church). He wrote “soon” when another poster suggested setting fire to these places of worship.

A month later he attempted to sell weapons on online marketplace TradeMe, using a prominent white nationalist slogan — “14 Words” — in his username. (Strangely, this clear red flag was mentioned only once in the royal commission report on the attacks.)

TradeMe removed one of these advertisements for violating its terms of use. That caused Tarrant to move to another forum — NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums — to complain.

Extremist community
Our study has also revealed how important the 4chan community is to the radicalisation of individuals like Tarrant. In contrast to the fleeting human interaction he had with others as he travelled the world, 4chan was Tarrant’s community.

4chan’s /pol/ (politically incorrect) board became his home. Here he interacted with others over long periods, imagining he was speaking to the same people over months and years, and assuming many of them had become his friends.

We have found that, while creating a sense of belonging and community, /pol/ also works to create extremists in both direct and indirect ways.

Its anonymous nature (users are assigned a unique ID number for each thread, rather than a username) has two effects. One is well known, the other identified in our study.

First, anonymity encourages behaviour that would be absent if the poster’s identity was known. Second, anonymity is frustrating for those who wish to “be someone”, who crave respect and notoriety.

We have documented the way Tarrant (and others) strive to gain status in a discussion, only to have to start again when they move to a new thread and are given a new ID. This lack of ongoing recognition is agonising for some individuals, who go to lengths to obtain respect.

Anonymity and peer respect
And just like a real-world fascist movement, /pol/ venerates violent action as necessary for the vitality and regeneration of the community.

When a terrorist attack, school shooting or other violent event occurs, users celebrate these events in so-called “happening” threads. These threads are longer, more emotional and excited than any other discussions. Participants often claim the individual at the centre of the event is “/ourguy/” (a reference to the /pol/ board).

The threads are also highly anticipatory: many users believe this event will finally push society into violent chaos and race war.

These dynamics are closely connected. For those who seek recognition and status on the bulletin board, such as Tarrant, the excited attention and adoration given to those who perpetrate high-profile violence is the clearest path to the peer respect that the anonymity of the board otherwise denies them.

As harrowing as this finding is, we contend that gaining respect from their online community is in itself a crucial motivation for some perpetrators of far-right terrorism.

The nature of this extreme but easily accessible corner of the internet means any hope Tarrant was a one-off — and that this won’t happen again — is misguided.

The authors acknowledge the expert contribution of tactical and forensic linguist and independent researcher Julia Kupper. More information about our study will be released at heiaglobal.com. Our research was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participant Ethics Committee. A paper based on this study has been submitted for peer review and publication.

Chris Wilson, co-founder and director of Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa (HEIA) and director, Master of Conflict and Terrorism Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Ethan Renner, researcher, Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Jack Smylie, research analyst, Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, and Michal Dziwulski, researcher, Hate & Extremism Insights Aotearoa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The image of Amna Ali telling her five-year-old son that his father is in heaven will forever be etched in my memory.

Mohammad was six months old when his dad Syed Jahandad Ali was killed at Al-Noor mosque.

As Amna sat there bravely telling me her story, a little voice said “Mama”.

• READ MORE: Muslims mark 5th anniversary of Christchurch mosque terror attacks
• Coalition government falling short on mosque attack anniversary – Islamic council
• Christchurch terror attack: Survivors finding new purpose five years on — Mahvash Ikram

Her son had been upstairs playing with his granddad while his mother talked to the strange lady who he’d never met before.

Clearly, his patience had run out.

She wanted to tell him to be quiet, but I asked her to bring her son down instead.

I had never met Syed, but had seen pictures of him.

Spitting image
Mohammad is a spitting image of his father.

He sat in Amna’s lap as she explained to him she was telling me about his “Baba”.

And then she told him is Baba is in heaven, “he’s in the best place” she told him to repeat.

Since Syed’s death Amna has completed two diplomas, travelled alone with her three children and is planning to start an IT career.

Ironically, her graduation ceremony is on March 15, and she planned to receive her diploma in person.

Even as she looked back at the most painful years of her life she didn’t shed a single tear.

On the other hand, I found it hard to fight the lump in my throat.

He was a foodie
After the interview, she had an elaborate morning tea on the kitchen counter — I was surprised how this mum of three young children found the time to prepare so much beautiful food.

Syed was a foodie she told me, he loved her cooking.

Just hours earlier I had left Auckland, like every other year it was time to do a story about the mosque attacks.

But this anniversary was going to be different I told myself. I had planned to meet survivors and families and talk about their achievements.

I had no idea their resilience and strength would be so overwhelming.

Most of the people in the mosques on the day of the attacks came from countries where terrorism isn’t rare.

Over the past five years many people have asked me, with no malice at all, why the Christchurch attacks left such a deep impact on the survivors and families.

Best answer?
Perhaps, survivor Faisal Abbas has the best answer.

He was in Peshawar, Pakistan, in 2014 when terrorists gunned down hundreds of teachers and students at the Army Public School massacre.

It was his school and he wanted to send his children there.

The principal who died saving her students had been his teacher.

To him, it was a final nail in the coffin. He told me he did not want to be where even his school wasn’t safe, so he picked the safest country he could find and moved to New Zealand.

For Faisal, he says, it’s his first hand experience of terrorism and choosing to get away from it that made the Christchurch attacks even harder to process.

‘Going with the flow’
Before the attacks, he said, he meticulously planned everything, but now he prefers to “go with the flow”.

He trusts in Allah’s plan and he knows whatever will happen is for the best.

And then he repeated a verse from the Quran where God tells Prophet Mohammad “Verily with hardship comes ease”.

I share the same religion as the survivors, but I pray my faith in God becomes as strong as theirs.

One of the toughest thing as a journalist is to decide what makes the final cut.

Farid Ahmed made headlines around the world for choosing to forgive the attacker who killed his wife.

When I interviewed him for my story on this trip he was in hospital fighting an infection — a detail that I didn’t put in the story.

Message of love, forgiveness
Being in a wheelchair hasn’t stopped him from spreading the message of love and forgiveness.

I told him perhaps now would be a good time to slow down and rest. He just smiled and said there was no time, otherwise it would be a disservice to his wife who died saving others.

One of my favourite parts of the trip was visiting Temel Atacocugu. Despite nine bullets and some 30 surgeries, his sense of humour is intact.

He has three pet goldfish all of whom he’s given Turkish names. Pakize — the pure one, Serafettin — the good boy and Abuziddin, Temel says that’s just a traditional name.

I didn’t imagine I would come back feeling so moved.

Five years ago, the survivors and families I met told me they would rebuild their lives. Every year they inched closer to that goal.

This time they seemed to have delivered on that promise.

I can only marvel at the miracle of their strength and resilience which is beyond my understanding.

And the only words that help me make any sense of it all are: “Verily with hardship comes ease”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern has received one of the top accolades in today’s King’s Birthday Honours.

Ardern, who was prime minister from September 2017 until January this year, has been appointed a Dame Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

She received the honour for services to the state.

• READ MORE: King’s Birthday Honours: Kiwis recognised for service across fields from business to sport
• Other King’s Birthday Honours reports

Dame Jacinda declined to speak to RNZ about the award, but said in a statement she was “incredibly humbled”.

“I was in two minds about accepting this acknowledgement. So many of the things we went through as a nation over the last five years were about all of us rather than one individual,” Ardern said.

“But I have heard that said by so many Kiwis who I have encouraged to accept an honour over the years. And so for me this a way to say thank you — to my family, to my colleagues, and to the people who supported me to take on the most challenging and rewarding role of my life.”

Ardern’s official citation listed her leadership in response to the March 15 terrorist attacks and the covid-19 pandemic “positioning New Zealand as having one of the lowest covid-19 related death rates in the Western world.”

It noted she had been named top of Fortune Magazine‘s World’s 50 Greatest Leaders in 2021.

The citation also referenced Ardern’s focus on child poverty reduction and listed several policies her government introduced, including free school lunches in some schools.

Ardern was first elected in 2008 and became leader of the Labour Party in 2017. She became prime minister later that year.

Ardern announced her surprise resignation in January, saying she did not have “enough in the tank” to seek re-election.

Since leaving politics in April, Ardern has become New Zealand’s Special Envoy for the Christchurch Call and trustee of Prince William’s Earthshot Prize.

She has also been appointed two fellowships at Harvard University.

In a statement, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Ardern was recognised for leading New Zealand through some of the “greatest challenges” the country has faced in modern times.

“Leading New Zealand’s response to the 2019 terrorist attacks and to the covid-19 pandemic represented periods of intense challenge for our 40th prime minister, during which time I saw first hand that her commitment to New Zealand remained absolute.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Jacinda Ardern’s resignation as prime minister in January was a courageous and pragmatic decision for herself, her family and her party.

Although many said she had done a great job as leader, she rightly reminded us that a great leader is “one who knows when it’s time to go”.

Since hitting stellar heights in mid-2020, Ardern’s Labour Party had dropped significantly in the polls and was trailing the opposition National Party throughout 2022.

• READ MORE: NZ election 2020: Jacinda Ardern promised transformation — instead, the times transformed her
• Anniversary of a landslide: new research reveals what really swung New Zealand’s 2020 ‘covid election’
• Women leaders and coronavirus: look beyond stereotypes to find the secret to their success

The “Jacinda effect” had switched from being a uniting force to a polarising one. With an election coming in October, it was time for a change.

Her decision to stand down was as politically astute and timely as her elevation to leader of the Labour Party in August 2017. After all, Labour is now ahead of National in recent polls.

By the time she gives her valedictory statement to parliament later today, Ardern will have served as an MP for nearly 15 years. While the intervening period has undoubtedly changed her, she remains in many ways the same person she was as a novice backbencher.

In her maiden speech to the House of Representatives in 2008, she expressed the small-town values that got her started:

Some people have asked me whether I am a radical. My answer to that question is very simple: I am from Morrinsville. Where I come from a radical is someone who chooses to drive a Toyota rather than a Holden or a Ford.

She described herself as a social democrat who believed in human rights, social justice, equality and democracy. She spoke especially about work, education, community and the reduction of poverty – child poverty in particular.

All fine aspirations. But back then, Ardern’s Labour Party was looking at nine long years in opposition after Helen Clark’s three-term government lost power.

Unable to break the run National’s John Key enjoyed as prime minister, Labour went through one leader after another while Ardern rose through the ranks.

In mid-2017, despite a mood for change, it still looked like the election wouldn’t go well for Labour, at the time polling down around 25 percent. Then, at the beginning of August, Andrew Little handed leadership of the party to Ardern. With just seven weeks until the election, it was either an inspired move or the ultimate hospital pass.

As history shows, however, Ardern’s elevation immediately energised Labour’s campaign. It also drew international attention to the New Zealand election, as what became known as “Jacindamania” changed the mood on the streets and in the media.

Accidents of history
Critics sometimes labelled Ardern the “accidental prime minister” — a rookie “appointed” by Winston Peters, whose New Zealand First party held the balance of power in post-election negotiations. Conventional wisdom has it that Ardern simply offered Peters a better coalition deal, despite her party having won fewer seats than National.

But Peters gave those critics some more ammunition during a recent TV interview. He appeared to reveal that New Zealand First was forced to choose coalition with Labour when then-National leader Bill English alerted him to a potential leadership coup by Judith Collins.

According to Peters, English had assured him Collins didn’t have the numbers to pull it off. (Collins would eventually become National leader, of course, losing spectacularly to Ardern at the 2020 election.)

This sliding-doors version of events may be conjecture. But Peters can’t have forgotten how Jenny Shipley had rolled previous National leader and prime minister Jim Bolger in 1997.

That ultimately led to the breakup of the National-New Zealand First coalition in which Peters had been deputy prime minister and treasurer.

Perhaps, then, we have Collins to thank for Ardern’s elevation to the top job. We’ll probably never know.

Rise and fall
The “Jacinda effect” wasn’t a flash in the pan, however. Labour’s election support went from 25 percent in 2014 to 37 percent in 2017, and then to an extraordinary 50 percent in 2020. Coming on the back of Ardern’s exemplary leadership through the covid pandemic, it was an unprecedented result under the country’s proportional MMP system.

Her belief in “kindness” as a political force appeared to have been vindicated, if not for long. While New Zealand eventually recorded the world’s lowest excess mortality rate during the pandemic, this success was far from cost-free. In particular, there was a human and political price to pay for the lockdowns and border closures.

Businesses struggled, many New Zealanders abroad couldn’t return, and many resisted the pressure to be vaccinated. No nation escaped unscathed, and in New Zealand resistance to vaccine mandates boiled over on the grounds of parliament in early 2022.

Some protesters were angered by Ardern’s trademark empathy and kindness, which they now perceived as a false front. Due to the extremist elements among the protests, she refused to address them directly.

Ardern’s positive leadership reputation was earned on her responses to tragedies: the Christchurch terror attack, the Whakaari-White Island eruption, and the pandemic. But no sane politician would have welcomed such crises.

Nor were they part of Ardern’s social democratic plan. In fact, they hindered it. She did a lot for child poverty and family incomes, in line with her core values. But those achievements were overshadowed by a pandemic response that upended her government’s fiscal policy.

Promise unfulfilled
So, if catastrophes were the making of Jacinda’s career as prime minister, they were also the breaking of it. From her first campaign speech in August 2017, she had created a sense of promise that her government was ultimately unable to fulfil.

She claimed climate change was her generation’s “nuclear-free moment”, and that a decent, affordable home was everyone’s right. It sounded great, but on both counts progress fell short of expectation and need. Later, she would capitulate on a full capital gains tax to help solve the housing crisis. That allowed coalition partner Peters to claim credit for the backdown.

But it would also be wrong if the lasting narrative was one of failure to deliver. Her government’s Child Poverty Reduction Act now mandates reporting on progress towards poverty targets, bringing the problem into the engine room of fiscal policy. The Healthy School Lunches program helped reduce food insecurity.

Future governments will encounter strong political resistance if they try to rescind those measures.

Even those tireless advocates for children, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), gave Ardern qualified approval following her resignation — although the truce didn’t last long. CPAG was back on the attack when Stats NZ reported “child poverty rates for the year ended June 2022 were unchanged compared with the previous year”.

A complex legacy
In the end, Ardern did not use the single-party majority she won in 2020 to fix the things she had wanted to fix. When her government saw a problem, its default setting was to say “let’s centralise it” — as if that would do. Good social democratic government was sidelined by bureaucratic shakeups in healthcare, education and (before the plan was cancelled) public broadcasting.

An elaborate structural reform of water services became mired in controversy over Māori co-governance and loss of local democratic control. The sixth Labour government’s only potentially historic contribution to the development of New Zealand’s social security system — a proposed unemployment insurance scheme — was quietly shelved after criticism from both left and right.

So, will Ardern be remembered as one the great Labour leaders? To do so would put her in the pantheon of Michael Joseph Savage and Peter Fraser, who achieved so much in social security, healthcare and education, and who led the country through the Second World War.

It would also place her next to Norman Kirk, whose 1972-75 government universalised accident compensation, introduced the domestic purposes benefit, and stood against French nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Ardern with baby Neve in 2018, the second prime minister to give birth while in office.
Getty Images

It’s a high bar, but not unreasonable to make the case. Ardern broke through barriers for women, most notably giving birth to her daughter while she held office. She united the country after the mosque shootings, soothing what could have become a divisive moment.

By listening to the scientific evidence and advice about covid, she helped save countless lives.

Ardern will undoubtedly be remembered as one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s outstanding prime ministers. This may not be for reasons of her choosing, though. Once the disaster management is accounted for, there are no major lasting achievements for which her government will be cited in the history books.

What will be remembered is Ardern’s exemplary and highly effective leadership through covid. Yet there is no “kind” pathway through an unkind pandemic.

Nevertheless, Jacinda Ardern is owed gratitude for all that she did — and acknowledgement of all she had to endure — to get her nation through it.

Dr Grant Duncan is associate professor, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

A human rights advocate appealed tonight for people in Aotearoa New Zealand to take personal responsibility in the fight against disinformation and to upskill their critical thinking skills.

Anjum Rahman, project lead of the Inclusive Aotearoa Collective Tāhono, said this meant taking responsibility for verifying the accuracy and source of information before passing it on and not fuelling hate and misunderstanding.

“Our democracy is very fragile,” she warned while delivering the annual David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022 with the theme “Protecting Democracy in an Online World” at Parnell’s Jubilee Hall.

• READ MORE: A lot has changed since March 15, 2019 – but not enough

She said communities were facing challenging and rapidly changing times with climate change, conflicts, inflation and the ongoing pandemic.

“If our democracy fails, all those other things fail as well,” she said.

“And for those of us who are more vulnerable it is a matter of life and death.

“Who most stand to lose their freedom if democracy fails? Who will be on the frontline to be exterminated?”

Rahman is co-chair of the Christchurch Call Advisory Network and a member of the Independent Advisory Committee of the Global Internet Forum for Countering Terrorism.

Argued strongly for diversity
As an advocate, she has argued strongly for many years in support of diversity and inclusion and in 2019 was made a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

On the third anniversary of the 15 March 2019 mosque massacre, she wrote in a column for The Spinoff that “we don’t need any more empty platitudes of sorrow . . . we need firm action and strong resolve. Across the board.”

The David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022.                      Video: Billy Hania

The recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry were more critical now than ever, and absolutely urgent, she wrote.

“In a world that feels chaotic, with war, rising prices, anger and hate expressed in protests across the world, our hearts seek a certainty that isn’t there.

“We need more urgency, and in many areas. I’m still disappointed with the Counter-Terrorism legislation passed last year, granting greater powers without evidence of any benefit. Hate speech legislation has been delayed, and we await a full review and overhaul of the national security system.”

A founding member of the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand, Rahman gave a wide-ranging address tonight on the online challenges for democracy, and answered a host of questions from the audience of about 100.

“I’m really worried about trolls,” said one. “They affect government, they influence voters, they have an impact on all sorts of decision making – what can be done about it?”

Rahman replied that it was very difficult question – “I wish there was a simple answer.”

Removing troll incentives
She said there needed to be more education and greater awareness of the activities of trolls and the sort of social media platforms they operated on.

One problem was that the more attention paid trolls got, it often meant the more money they were getting.

A challenge was to remove the incentive being given to them.

Award-winning cartoonist Malcolm Evans asked Rahman what her response was to the global situation “right now” with the invasion of Ukraine where people were “under intense pressure to vilify the Russians . . . treating them as ‘evil’.”

He added that “we live in a time that is probably the most dangerous that I have experienced in my lifetime … we are facing an Armageddon and I blame the media for that.

“It’s a disgrace.”

This led to a discussion by Pax Christi Aotearoa’s Janfrie Wakim about how Evans lost his job as a cartoonist on The New Zealand Herald in 2003 for “naming Israeli apartheid” over the repression of Palestinians to the loud applause of the audience.

‘Quality journalism’ paywalls
In a discussion about media, Rahman said she was disturbed by the failures of the media business model that meant increasingly “quality journalism” was being placed behind paywalls while the public that could not afford paywalls were being served “poor quality” information.

Introducing Anjum Rahman, Pax Christi’s Susan Healy said how “especially delighted the Wakim whanau were” that she had agreed to give the lecture.

David Wakim was the inaugural president of Pax Christi Aotearoa, an independent section of Pax Christi International, a Catholic organisation founded in France at the end of World War Two committed to working “to transform a world shaken by violence, terrorism, deepening inequalities, and global insecurity”.

Growing up in a Sydney Catholic family, Wakim was an advocate of interfaith dialogue. His travels in Muslim countries strengthened his links with the three faiths of Abraham – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

He helped establish the Council of Christians and Muslims in Auckland, but was especially committed to Palestinian rights.

Wakim died in 2005 and the annual lecture honours his and Pax Christi’s mahi for Tiriti o Waitangi, interfaith dialogue, peace education, human rights and restorative justice.

Hate speech will become a criminal offence in New Zealand and anyone convicted could face harsher punishment under proposed legislative changes.

The government has today released for public consultation its long-awaited plan for the laws governing hate speech.

The plan is part of the government’s work to strengthen social cohesion, in response to the Royal Commission of inquiry into the Christchurch mosque terror attack.

• READ MORE: Jacinda Ardern promises to close ‘gaps in hate speech legislation’

Justice Minister Kris Faafoi said yesterday that abusive or threatening speech that incites can divide communities.

“Building social cohesion, inclusion and valuing diversity can also be a powerful means of countering the actions of those who seek to spread or entrench discrimination and hatred,” he said.

Protecting free speech and protecting people from hate speech would require careful consideration and a wide range of input, Faafoi said.

That would mean anyone who “intentionally stirs up, maintains or normalises hatred against a protected group” by being “threatening, abusive or insulting, including by inciting violence” would break the law.

The punishment for hate speech offences could also increase — from up to three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $7000, to up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000.

The groups protected from hate speech could also grow – the government is considering changing the language and widening the incitement provisions in the Human Rights Act.

It has not yet decided which groups will be added. That is expected to happen following public consultation.

It is currently only an offence to use speech that will “excite hostility” or “bring into contempt” a person or group on the grounds of their colour, race or ethnicity. Gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability are not protected grounds.

The government is proposing several changes to the civil provision of the Human Rights Act, including making it illegal to incite others to discriminate against a protected group.

Protection from discrimination
It also wants to amend the Human Rights Act to ensure trans, gender-diverse and intersex people are protected from discrimination.

The proposed changes were recommended by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terror attack on 15 March 2019, which found hate crime and hate speech were not adequately dealt with.

“The current laws do not appropriately recognise the culpability of hate-motivated offending, nor do they provide a workable mechanism to deal with hate speech.”

The Ministry of Social Development will simultaneously consult with the public about what can be done to make New Zealand more socially cohesive.

Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who is leading the social cohesion programme, told a media conference today the government wanted to build from existing Māori-Crown values.

“We are not starting from scratch,” she said. “We are generally regarded as a country with a high level of social cohesion and we’ve seen that as our team of 5 million has largely come together to rally around both in the aftermath of March 15 and also during the covid-19 lockdown.”

However, she said there were underlying vulnerabilities that New Zealand needed to address as the country grew in diversity and that this effort would be grounded in the values of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Māori-Crown relationship.

Ethnic programme
She said the government had accepted in principle all 44 recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks and had made progress on implementing those. Subsequent hui with ethnic groups had fed into the government’s response, she added.

“We’ve set up an ethnic communities graduate programme to provide a pathway into the public service for skilled graduates from ethic communities and also as one way to inject that broader cultural competence into government agencies, including the intelligence agencies.

“And the new Ministry for Ethnic Communities will come into effect next week and will take the place of the Office for Ethnic Communities.”

Radhakrishnan said the programme had a broader reach than ethnicity and that others who feel marginalised were being included.

She said the government wanted input from the public on how the programme can be forwarded.

Public submissions open today and close on August 6. The government’s discussion document includes steps on how to submissions.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

We, Alternative Jewish Voices, hope for a productive and unifying second day at the Christchurch anti-terrorism hui. Security is something we build together and give each other. A threat may be singular, but our safety is collective.

We are saddened to hear that such a kaupapa has been disrespected and we are, additionally, horrified to hear Jewish Council spokesperson Juliet Moses double down on her claim that she was expressing the sentiment of our national Jewish community.

It was wrong to coopt the hui for statements that (according to the comments of those present) “securitised” and “essentialised” the Muslim community.

• READ MORE: Juliet Moses attack on Palestine solidarity protesters at the Christchurch counter-terrorism conference was wrong – John Minto
• Hui on countering terrorism sees mass walkout over Hezbollah comment

We object to any statement that presumes Palestinian solidarity must imply a love of violence. Such statements are wrong, period; and it was additionallty wrong to bring those politics into the anti-terrorism venue in particular.

We feel for those who have been hurt, but we are heartened to hear that the hui will continue with its mission.

We have challenged the Jewish Council’s claim to represent our community. We repeat our statement in order to challenge Ms Moses’s present claim that the council’s politics represent the fears of all NZ Jews.

The NZ Jewish Council records its mission thus: “The council is the representative organisation of New Zealand Jewry. Its objective is to promote the interests, welfare and wellbeing of New Zealand Jewry.”

Chosen by regional councils
However, as we understand it, NZ Jewish Council members are chosen by a number of regional Jewish councils. The NZ Jewish Council members seem to be appointed through a series of indirect institutional processes.

Members of Alternative Jewish Voices who belong to synagogues — some for many years — have never had any direct input to the composition of the NZ Jewish Council. Jews who are not members of a synagogue don’t appear to have any voice in these processes at all.

The NZ Jewish Council does not attempt to elicit, include or represent the spectrum of views within the Jewish community.

We want our neighbours to understand that the ardent Zionist voices of the NZ Jewish Council and Israel Institute do not represent the whole community of New Zealand Jews. They emphatically do not represent us.

Alternative Jewish Voices wishes all participants in the Christchurch hui wisdom and unity. We all need your kaupapa and we will all benefit from it.

• Alternative Jewish Voices of New Zealand

New Zealand’s anti-terrorism hui has been marked by a mass walkout from members of the Muslim community.

The country’s first hui on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism in Ōtautahi/Christchurch involved experts discussing the evolution of terrorism risk in New Zealand, online extremism, the role of media, and the consequences of hate.

The walkout happened yesterday during a panel addressing the causes of terrorism after a comment from NZ Jewish Council spokesperson Juliet Moses about the Israel-Palestine conflict sparked a commotion.

• READ MORE: Juliet Moses attack on Palestine solidarity protestors at the Christchurch counter-terrorism conference was wrong – John Minto

Moses had told the crowd that leaders should be consistent in condemning terrorism.

“We need to hear leaders condemn all support for terrorism and all terrorism equally whatever the source, target, and circumstances, and even when it is not politically expedient to do so,” she said.

“Hezbollah and Hamas, their military wings are proscribed terror organisations in New Zealand but we saw a rally in support of Hezbollah on Queen St in 2018.”

Her remarks caused a strong response from members of the Muslim community, including victims of the Christchurch mosque attacks, as people shouted: “Free Palestine.”

Federation of the Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) chair Abdur Razzaq said the hui was about “discussing social cohesion … we came here to discuss ways to peace”.

“There are lots of things out there that divide us, let us have some wisdom and prioritise what unites us first.”

He said it was “inappropriate” to discuss issues “that divide us” and was not the tikanga way.

After the panel had finished, the hui organisers gave those in attendance a chance to respond to the comments which included a remark from Rashid Omar whose son Tariq died in the 15 March 2019 mosque attacks.

Moses said she was only “stating fact” and did not believe her comments were controversial and that she was referring to the 2018 march, not the one that happened in Auckland in support of Palestine this year.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Thanks Simon. For those wondering, I said that leaders should be consistent in condemning support for terrorism and that the military wing of Hezbollah is a proscribed terror group which we had seen a rally supporting in Auckland 2018. I said we need to leave that overseas. https://t.co/Bjh51z2Z2S

— Juliet Moses (@JulietMosesNZ) June 15, 2021

It was announced yesterday that Australian actress Rose Byrne will star as New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in an upcoming movie about the response to the Christchurch mosque terror attacks of 15 March 2019, titled They Are Us.

The movie will be directed by New Zealand’s Andrew Niccol. The movie’s focus is apparently going to be on the positive impact of a strong leader in the wake of tragedy.

Let’s take a moment to unpack that oversized baggage of white nonsense.

• READ MORE: Actress Rose Byrne to play Jacinda Ardern in mosque attacks film
• They are not us and it hurts to be props in a Hollywood movie – Mohamed Hassan
• Thousands sign petition denouncing mosque attacks film

To be clear, this is the peak Karen of film announcements.

We are barely over two years on from one of the deadliest mass shootings in modern history.

The 51 people who were killed and the 40 who were wounded were specifically targeted for their Muslim faith. Those families are still traumatised and recovering from injuries, mourning and missing their loved ones.

They are still painfully experiencing firsts without their loved ones: first day of school, first grandchild being born, first jobs, university graduations and so much more. Their wounds have barely had time to scab over.

Witnesses fighting for ACC support
Uninjured witnesses to the horrific shootings are still fighting for support from the ACC for their mental injuries.

A survivor of the attacks, whose own father was killed that day, reported as recently as Friday that he encountered racist abuse outside his workplace, with no bystander intervention to help.

The Christchurch mosque attacks destroyed the lives of entire families and confirmed the worst fears of the Muslim community in New Zealand: that we aren’t safe anywhere. Not here. And certainly not if we’re Rohingya, not if we’re Uyghur, not if we’re Palestinian, not if we’re in our places of worship or even just crossing the street.

Somebody explain to 9-year-old Fayez Afzaal how to feel any other way as he recovers in a hospital in Ontario, the sole surviving member of his family after his parents, sister and grandmother were murdered by yet another white supremacist terrorist with Islamophobic views.

This attack in Canada happened just this week. You probably didn’t hear about it. Because white women like Rose Byrne and Jacinda Ardern will dominate the headlines while our communities are suffering.

This movie purports to centre a white woman character and her role in the aftermath of a heinous tragedy instead of focusing on the stories of the victims and survivors. It’s being directed by a white man. Hollywood will make money off this. Rose Byrne will be paid a pretty penny.

Remember that there were people in that mosque who literally put their bodies in the firing line and died to protect others, but apparently it’s the white saviour’s story that’s worth telling instead.

Where is the Muslim community?
Where is the Muslim community that was most impacted in this?

And I am not mollified by some “consultation with several members of the mosque”. I’m not naïve enough to believe the scope or depth of that consultation process would have been anywhere near adequate.

How is it okay for others to profit off our pain? How is it okay for Muslims to be de-centred from a story about their suffering? How can we celebrate this tragedy as something that was ultimately a triumph because someone got a pretty photo of Ardern in a hijab and it inspired some graffiti art and a light show in Dubai?

The banning of assault weapons, while important, did nothing to address the core issues of Islamophobia and racism festering in our societies under a thin façade of tolerance.

Similarly, this movie will achieve nothing for the community that was attacked either. It’s exploitative. It’s in bad taste.

USC Annenberg recently published a study on Muslim representation in popular film. It found that in popular films between 2017 – 2019, 181 of 200 films had no Muslim characters at all. Of the nearly 9000 characters in these films, only 1.6 percent of the speaking roles were Muslims.

Not only are we grossly under-represented, but when we’re represented at all it’s either as the victims or perpetrators of violence. And Muslim women are all but invisible on screen. The incredibly diverse ethnic backgrounds of Muslims are also erased in favour of the stereotypical portrayal of a Muslim as being either Middle Eastern or North African.

The film will focus the week following the 15 March Christchurch mosque attacks with Australian actrss Rose Byrne set to play New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, according to US media. Photo: RNZ / AFP

Can we have any confidence?
Given that, how can we have any confidence of this story being told with any sensitivity, nuance or even truthfulness?

If the Christchurch attacks are the subject of a movie, how can we be certain the violence won’t be glorified? That it won’t give hope to would-be attackers that their hateful actions would bring them the notoriety they seek?

That’s not to say we shouldn’t talk about the attacks, but there are at least 91 people I can think of who I would rather see as the subject of any such movie rather than our Prime Minister. Those 91 people and their families are mostly immigrants and refugees, of all ages, racial backgrounds, genders, working across so many industries. I promise you that any one of their stories would be more interesting, and worthy, of immortalising on film.

But Muslims also don’t want to be depicted only as the victims or aggressors of violence. Believe it or not, most of us can get through our entire lives without having thrown, or being on the receiving end, of a punch. We exist outside this context of tragedy too.

However, no one wants to know us on our terms. “They are us” plays nicely in a soft liberal speech, works well as a caption. What does it mean, in practical terms, if we can’t even be seen as the heroes of our own stories.

Saziah Bashir is a freelance journalist commenting on issues of social justice, race and gender. She completed an LLB, BCom and LLM from the University of Auckland. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

• Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s office clarified that neither she nor the government have any involvement in the film.

Australian actress Rose Byrne is set to play NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in a film about the week following the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks, according to US media reports.

New Zealand screenwriter and producer Andrew Niccol will write and direct the project, They Are Us, which focuses on the week following the 2019 attacks, the Hollywood media outlet Deadline reports.

Glen Basner’s FilmNation Entertainment is shopping the project to international buyers at the upcoming Cannes Virtual Market, according to the report.

• READ MORE: The mosque massacres

“They Are Us is not so much about the attack but the response to the attack … how an unprecedented act of hate was overcome by an outpouring of love and support,” Niccol told The Hollywood Reporter.

The title is drawn from Ardern’s words on the day of the attacks, describing those directly affected by the shootings.

The film is reportedly being produced by Ayman Jamal, Stewart Till, Niccol and Philippa Campbell, with production to take place in New Zealand.

The Hollywood Reporter said the script was developed in consultation with several members of the mosques affected by the tragedy.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

It took seven months for the New Zealand police to set up their first team for scanning the internet after the mosque attacks – but it was almost immediately in danger of being shut down.

An internal report released under the Official Information Act (OIA) said this was despite the team already proving its worth “many times over” in countering violent extremists.

The unit still does not have dedicated funding, despite a warning last July it risked being “turned off”.

• READ MORE: SIS and the ‘known unknowns’

This is revealed in 170 pages of OIA documents charting police intelligence shortcomings over the last decade, from pre-2011 extending through to mid-2020, and their attempts to overhaul the national system since 2018.

These show police had no dedicated team before 2019 to scan the internet for threats – what is called an OSINT team, for “Open Source Intelligence”.

“The OSINT team was stood up quickly last year with seconded staff to ensure… [an] appropriate emphasis on this new capability,” an internal report from July 2020 said.

In fact, police began the planning at the end of 2018, then “accelerated” it after the attacks, but it took till late October for the team to start, and training began in November 2019, a police statement to RNZ last week said.

This was all well after a January 2018 official assessment of the domestic terrorism threatscap said: “Open source reporting indicates the popularity of far right ideology has risen in the West since the early 2000s”.

When the police OSINT unit was finally set up, there was no guarantee it would last.

“This team is not permanent,” the July 2020 report said.

“This has meant uncertainty for staff and our intelligence customers.”

‘Seriously compromises’
The team had no dedicated budget, and lacked trained staff.

It also was still looking for tools to “quickly capture and categorise online intelligence elements”.

“The lack of a strong OSINT capability seriously compromises our intelligence collection posture, especially in major events,” said the report last July.

This is the sort of scanning that can pick up threats on 4chan or other extremist sites.

Despite the shortcomings, the internet team’s worth had already been proven “many times over in recent months, particularly in the counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism space”, the report said.

Three people have faced extremist charges in the last year or so.

‘Turned off’
An April 2019 report said police would begin recruiting for OSINT analytics and other specialists in April-May 2019.

Police had lacked a tool to search the dark web – where the truly egregious chat and trades take place on the internet – so bought one.

But last July’s report said “currently we run the risk” of OSINT “being turned off unless there is a dedicated budget”.

In a statement on Friday, police told RNZ: “The OSINT team has been funded as part of the overall allocation for intelligence since it was established.

“Maintaining this capability is a NZ Police priority, and dedicated funding is being sought as part of next year’s internal funding allocation process (note, this is funding from within Police’s existing baseline).

“Additional supplementary funding was also received in the last financial year to support the work of OSINT.”

They had known they needed the team, they said.

“Prior to March 15, New Zealand Police used some OSINT tools to support open source research of publicly available information and had identified the requirement to develop a dedicated capability.

“The development of this capability was accelerated by the events of March 15.”

‘9/11 moment’
The OIA documents show the OSINT intelligence weakness was not an isolated example.

These warned police needed to avoid “a ‘9/11’ moment” – a situation where police obtain information about a threat but do not understand it due to a failure to analyse how the dots join up, as happened to CIA and FBI before the terror attacks on New York in 2001.

The solution was to have “a complete intelligence picture”.

But the July 2020 report then laid out very clearly how police did not have this:

“Recent operational examples conclude there is no current ability to access all information in a timely and accurate manner,” it said.

“Currently there is no tool that can search across police holdings [databases] when undertaking analysis of investigations.

“We are still depending on manual searches.”

‘Locked down or invisible’
“Sources are either locked down or invisible to analysts. Our intelligence picture is consequently incomplete.”

The 31-page, July 2020 report detailed the police’s ‘Transforming Intelligence’ programme, dubbed TI21, that was begun in December 2018 and meant to be complete by this December.

It indicated the right technology would not be in place – or in some cases even identified – for 6-18 months.

As things stood, “there are many single points of failure in our intelligence system”, the report said.

Threat information was broken up into silos, without a centralised document management system or powerful enough analytic and geospatial software to connect the threats.

A section of the 2020 report detailing problems within the police’s High-Risk Targeting Teams has been mostly blanked out.

The OIA documents describe what is and is not working, especially when it comes to national security and counterterrorism, but also around intelligence on gang and drug crime, family violence, combating child sex offending, and the like, at a point many months after both the mosque attacks and the beginning of the system overhaul.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the mosque attacks in late 2020 called police national security intelligence capabilities “degraded” – not just once but six times.

It showed weaknesses elsewhere when it came to OSINT: The Security Intelligence Service had just one fulltime officer doing Open Source Internet searching, and the Government Communications Security Bureau had few resources for this, too. It was not till June 2019 that the Government’s Counter-Terrorism Coordination Committee suggested “leveraging open-source intelligence capability”.

Police, unlike SIS, did not do an internal review of how they had performed in the lead-up to March 15.

They did get a review done of how they did 48 hours after the attacks, which praised their efforts.

Tools missing

Among the key systems police have been lacking are:

• A national security portal “to search across police holdings”
• A national security person-of-interest tool
• A child sex offender management tool
• Cybercrime reporting systems – a “strategic demand” that “police intelligence is unable to effectively report on it”

Police in a statement said they had now “achieved a number of milestones”.

Key among them was introducing a National Security Portal to manage persons of interest.

Also, they now had standardised ways of improving quality and a National Intelligence Operating Model to ensure a consistent approach.

“The OSINT team, a new case management tool and “refined intelligence support to major events… has increased the capability, capacity and resilience of Police Intelligence to reduce and respond to counter-terrorism risks”.

The “Transforming Intelligence” documents refer repeatedly to having three new Target Development Centres set up in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

However, this was jettisoned last year, while the overhaul did stick with introducing Precision Targeting Teams in August 2018, police said.

These teams aim to target “our most prolific offenders” early on “to reduce crimes such as burglary, robbery and other violent and high-volume offending”.

Pressure on
Police are plugging the holes in national intelligence while under pressure.

The volume of leads coming in had increased “considerably” since March 2019, the July 2020 report said.

“This has put increased strain on our people to manage cases of concern.”

The intelligence weaknesses have persisted under four police commissioners since the national intelligence system was set up in 2008.

Intelligence staff have been quitting at three times the average rate in the public sector, and the documents laid out urgent plans to improve career pathways and value the likes of field officers and collections staff more.

The July 2020 report said demand on workers at the Integrated Targeting and Operations Centre was “unsustainable”.

Deep-seated cultural problems across the police were recently uncovered by RNZ’s Ben Strang, whose reporting triggered an official investigation that found 40 percent of officers had been bullied or harassed.

The Transforming Intelligence 2021 programme covers 10 areas: Intelligence Operating Model, National Security, Open Source, Child Protection Offender Register, Critical Command Information, Collections, Intelligence Systems, Performance, Training and Intelligence Support to major events.

There is a stark contrast between how the police leadership described their intelligence systems, and what other documents state.

Timeline

2003

– The Government Audit Office underscores the importance of national security planning

– Police attempt to develop a national security plan deferred due to other priorities

2006

– Police appoint first national manager of intelligence – before this it was led at district level

2008

– New national intelligence model introduced, that lasts till 2019

2011

– March: Police national security intelligence review finds many gaps and recommends a slew of fixes

2014

– Police assess rightwing extremist threat nationally, the last time this happens before the end of 2018

2015

– Sept: Police review finds 2011’s shortcomings remain, recommends changes

– Police liaison officers begin work with SIS and GCSB

2018

– August: Precision Targeting Teams begin

– Nov/Dec: Police launch Transforming Intelligence overhaul, while praising the old model

2019

– March: Mosque terrorism attacks

– April: A report ramping up the intelligence overhaul celebrates the old model’s effectiveness

– Sept: Police approve high-level operating model for intelligence

– Oct: Police set up dedicated internet scanning team for first time

– Internet scanning team identifies counterterrorism threats

– Dec: Aim to set up professional development structure to reduce Intelligence staff attrition by 15 percent

2020

– National Intelligence Centre leadership team appointed

– Feb: Intelligence training plan in place; national workshops

– July: Stocktake of Intelligence overhaul finds many gaps

– Dec 2020-Dec 2021: Aim to identify new intelligence gathering and analysing tech, including a police-wide system

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The most fundamental obligation of any state is the safety of its citizens. On 15 March 2019, New Zealand completely failed in this obligation.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques was designed to tell us why and how this happened — why 51 people were murdered, and what steps need to be taken to prevent such acts recurring.

In a nutshell, the commission concluded no one was solely to blame. It was a collective failure, divided between the security agencies, the police and a population lacking social cohesion and with a fear of speaking out.

• READ MORE: Remembering my friend, and why there is no right way to mourn the Christchurch attacks
• ‘We all want to have a better NZ’ – Farid Ahmed responds to terror attacks report

The failure of the security agencies was unremarkable in the commission’s analysis. They were alienated, under-resourced and overly focusing counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremism.

While the agencies were aware of right-wing extremism, their intelligence was underdeveloped — but even if it had been better, the outcome may not have been different.

The primary reason the terrorist was not detected, the commission concludes, was due more to

the operational security that the individual maintained, the legislative authorising environment in which counter terrorism operates, and the limited capability and capacity of the counter terrorism agencies.

Intelligence and police failures
So, there was “no plausible way he could have been detected except by chance”. And apparently, this failure to detect was “not in itself an intelligence failure”. In fact, no security agency failed to meet required standards or was otherwise considered to be at fault.

Views will differ on that, but the culpability of the police is clearer. The report concludes their administration of the firearms licensing system did not meet required standards, due to a lack of staff guidance and training, and flawed referee vetting processes.

This intersected with the regulation of semi-automatic firearms which was “lax, open to easy exploitation and was gamed by the individual”.

Even so, the commission concluded it was possible, perhaps likely, that the terrorist would eventually have been able to obtain a licence. Beyond that is supposition: an effective licensing regime may have delayed his preparation, but whether it would have changed his mind about the attack, the target, the weapons, or even the country he was in, will always be unknown.

Whether these failings are sufficient for ministerial and/or agency accountability is a matter of debate. The last time anything comparable happened was after the Cave Creek disaster in 1995, when the responsible minister resigned over the systemic failure at the Department of Conservation.

Preventing another attack
Official accountability aside, the commission sets out the road map to prevent such an attack happening again. Fixing the firearms licence process will be the easiest. The six recommendations calling for enhanced standards and improved quality control dovetail with laws put in place after the attack.

The type of firearms used in the attack are largely prohibited and those who show “patterns of behaviour demonstrating a tendency to exhibit, encourage, or promote violence, hatred or extremism” can no longer be considered fit and proper to possess a firearm.

The other change will be harder. There are no fewer than 18 different recommendations aimed at the security agencies, starting with the creation of a new ministerial portfolio and establishment of a new national intelligence and security agency.

It will need to be well-resourced and empowered to meet a range of objectives, from developing a counter-terrorism strategy to creating a public-facing policy that addresses, prevents, detects and responds to extremism.

Also among the recommendations are greater information sharing between agencies, public outreach, the reporting of “threatscapes” and developing indicators identifying a person’s potential for violent extremism and terrorism.

All commendable goals, but how they will be reconciled with existing security agency remits, and whether there is a budget to meet such ambitions, is not clear at this stage.

The need for social cohesion
Perhaps most surprising in the report is the suggestion that the likeliest thing to have prevented the attack would have been a “see something, say something” culture — one in which those with suspicions about another person could safely raise their concerns with authorities.

“Such reporting,” the commission says, “would have provided the best chance of disrupting the terrorist attack.” This is a remarkable sentence, both brilliant and unnerving. It suggests the best defence against extremism was (and is) to be found within ourselves, and in the robust and multicultural communities we must create.

However, successive governments have failed in this area through their reluctance to make counter-terrorism strategies more public, perhaps worried about alienating or provoking sections of the population.

It’s a paradox, to say the least, but the commission recommends several measures to enhance social cohesion, beginning with the need to support the ongoing recovery needs of affected family, survivors and witnesses.

These evolve into a variety of soft goals, ranging from the possibility of a new agency focused on ethnic communities and multiculturalism, to investing in young New Zealanders’ cultural awareness.

Again, these recommendation are commendable, but the proof will be in their resourcing and synchronising with existing work in this area.

Free speech and public safety
Greater immediate progress may be made in the prevention of hate speech and an extension of the censorship laws to prohibit material advancing racial hatred, discrimination and/or views of racial superiority.

Although New Zealand already has law in this area (covering discrimination and sentencing in crimes related to race, ethnicity or religion), there remains a large gap when it comes to what is and is not permissible speech.

It then becomes a vexed question of the limits of free expression, and would be difficult to craft into law. But if the government could do this, a significant advance will have been made.

So, after all of these words, will the vision of this royal commission make New Zealand safer in the future? The answer is yes, risks can be reduced — but it is a long road ahead.

Dr Alexander Gillespie, professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The Christchurch mosque shooter has been designated as a “terrorist entity” by the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

The designation under New Zealand legislation freezes the assets of terrorist entities and makes it a criminal offence to participate in or support the activities of the designated terrorist entity.

Last Thursday, Australian Brenton Tarrant, 29, who carried out the mosque attacks on 15 March 2019, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of ever leaving jail.

• READ MORE: Selwyn Manning: The sentencing of a ‘human shell’ over NZ mosque atrocity

He had earlier admitted 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one charge of terrorism.

Jacinda Ardern said the designation was an “important demonstration of New Zealand’s condemnation of terrorism and violent extremism in all forms.

“This designation ensures the offender cannot be involved in the financing of terrorism in the future. We have an obligation to New Zealand and to the wider international community to prevent the financing of terrorist acts,” she said.

There are currently 20 terrorist entities designated under New Zealand law, including the mosque shooter, police said.

Under Section 22 of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, the prime minister may designate individuals or groups as terrorist entities, on advice from officials, police added.

Details of the designations process and the statements of case supporting designation of these entities can be found on the New Zealand Police website.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

In the middle of the convicted mosque attack terrorist’s sentencing in New Zealand’s High Court at Christchurch last week was language interpreter Dr Mustafa Derbashi helping survivors and families tell their stories.

His task was trying to help people to understand and to be understood.

“It was an honour … to be [offered] this role. It was a huge responsibility,” the Auckland University of Technology graduate said.

• READ MORE: Selwyn Manning: The sentencing of a ‘human shell’ over NZ mosque atrocity

“It was an honour to get the letter … to be [offered] this role. It was a huge responsibility,” the Auckland University of Technology graduate said.

The sentence hearing lasted four days, starting on Monday, August 24, and was conducted under heightened security.

A large number of victims and their families attended with 98 people giving impact statements, with those who could not be in the room due to covid-19 restrictions watching a restricted livestream in additional courtrooms or overseas.

The terrorist, Brenton Tarrant, who represented himself after he pleaded guilty to murdering 51 people, attempted murder of 40 people, and engaging in a terrorist act, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of ever leaving jail – the harshest sentence ever handed down by a New Zealand court.

Police and health settings
Dr Derbashi completed a Graduate Certificate in Arts (Interpreting) at the Auckland University of Technology in 2018, opening the opportunity for him to be a qualified interpreter in courts and tribunals, with the police and in health settings.

“I’ve worked in courts over the past few years and I’ve seen difficult situations … you need to be of your full consciousness,” he says.

Last week’s hearing was unprecedented and interpreting for it was a difficult challenge.

It was unpredictable, he said, as the victims and the relatives or anyone who represented them could be part of heightened emotions at the court, he said before the hearing.

“I am very humbled to be able to serve the country in this way. I would like to give special thanks to my legal and health interpreting lecturers, Jo Anna Burn and Ineke Crezee, both subject experts and excellent teachers.”

Interpreters do not just put together words in different languages, Dr Derbashi said. They need to be trusted and to have an ethical commitment which includes confidentiality, but also to convey the message as it is, without any omission or addition.

Court interpreting also has its own challenges.

Flexibility, impartiality needed
“You need to have not just a flexibility, but to be really impartial and ready to face any situation, particularly emotionally, psychologically and when you are talking about legal terms,” he said.

“Even if somebody swears, you need to go there.”

For example, a defence lawyer in a case might use vivid language to ask a victim whether sexual harassment and rape really happened.

If the interpreter could not interpret the question properly, then there could be a miscarriage of justice with an offender getting away with a crime.

Dr Derbashi also interpreted at the Dunedin vigil for the victims of the Christchurch mosque attacks.

“That was the first huge event I did. I was chosen by the Dunedin City Council at that time… and all the feedback that came afterwards was really amazing,” he said.

“For three hours I interpreted for more than 22 speakers, without knowing anything in advance about their speeches. It was a great honour, and a great challenge as well.”

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre from AUT News.

Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.

At what point in time does an atrocity have a beginning? Is it when the first gunshot is fired? When the first victim is killed? When a killer first submits to thoughts of hatred, alienation, blame and decides to apply those emotions into physical action? Or, is it when racism is justified, when killing is considered defensible by those in whom one chooses to associate with, to support, to impress? Is it when one subscribes to another’s ideology of hate? Or when silence is a protector – chosen by reasonable people – when those around us speak of inhuman things?

“Ok lads, enough talking, it’s time for action.” With those words early on 15 March 2019, and expressed to his dark-net acquaintances, Brenton Harrison Tarrant initiated his plan to murder as many people of the Muslim faith as was possible.

Tarrant then packed six firearms into his vehicle, including two military-styled assault rifles (AR-15 .223 calibre) and semi-automatic shotguns. He added 7000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet-styled knife, and four IEDs (improvised explosive devices).

Wrapped within a bulletproof-vest he reversed from the driveway of his rented Dunedin home and self-drove 361km northward to New Zealand’s largest South Island city, Christchurch.

Reconnaissance
Christchurch is known for its gardens, parks, sport, English-Victorian-styled architecture, earthquakes, parochialism, a modest inter-faith Muslim community; and, paradoxically, its white extremist gangs.

Two months earlier, in January 2019, Tarrant visited Christchurch. The purpose: reconnaissance of Al Noor Mosque – a place of prayer and worship for hundreds of the city’s Muslim people.

In January, Tarrant parked his vehicle adjacent to Al Noor Mosque, unpacked a drone and flew it above and over the facility. He recorded an aerial view video of the grounds, noting points of entry, exits, corridors where people could escape, where they could hide.

Tarrant observed how hundreds of people would attend Friday prayers. He decided Al Noor was the location, and, Friday was to be the day of the week which provided him an opportunity to kill as many people as possible on one single afternoon.

Christchurch is also a city built on a plane. Geographically it rests on a flat ancient seabed – framed only by the Port Hills to the south and the towering Southern Alps to the west. The city’s traffic is characteristically light (compared to other cities) and the route from Al Noor Mosque to nearby Linwood Islamic Centre is a short drive. Tarrant fathomed that even with news of a mass killer in the area, traffic would most likely be light.

Tarrant quietly, and unobserved, took notes. Once satisfied, he returned to Dunedin where he determinedly, and with precision, planned mass murder.

At no time during the reconnaissance, nor the planning phase, did New Zealand police nor Australia’s police, the Security Intelligence Services, the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau notice what was being planned and expressed online. Brenton Tarrant’s intensifying hatred grew, undeterred, against those who were not white. As is the case of many Western nations, New Zealand, along with its Five Eyes intelligence partners, Australia, Canada, Britain and the United States of America, had appeared more preoccupied with surveillance of those of Muslim and Islamic origins than they were of disarming an intensifying white extremist threat.

• VIEW: A video discussion on this security intelligence element – A View from Afar with Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning, 27 March 2020.

Alpha and Omega
In the early afternoon of 15 March 2019, Tarrant arrived at his first waypoint. He parked his vehicle in a neighbouring driveway. Around 190 worshippers (children, women, men) had already arrived at Al Noor Mosque and others were still making their way there for Friday Prayers.

It was a warm late Summers day. In a nearby park, people were playing. School children were enjoying the peace and fun that the garden city offered.

Inside his vehicle, Tarrant strapped his bulletproof vest tightly to his body. He put on a helmet. Earlier, he had fixed a video camera and a strobe light to the helmet – the latter was designed to confuse his intended victims; the camera was connected to the internet via a cellphone device so as to provide Tarrant the opportunity to livestream his intended atrocity to a Facebook audience.

Tarrant then sent a “Manifesto” to a white extremist website. He also emailed his intentions (with Manifesto attached) to the New Zealand Government, to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and to national and international media.

Minutes later, Tarrant weaponed up, stepping from his vehicle he carried two semi-automatic firearms (including a shotgun) with multiple magazines, and approached the entrance to Al Noor Mosque.

“At that time four worshippers, Mounir Soliman, Syed Ali, Amjad Hamid and Hussein Moustafa, were at the mosque’s front entrance. Without warning you discharged the shotgun multiple times in quick succession, killing each of them. A wounded Mr Moustafa was despatched by you at point-blank range with shots to his back and head.” [New Zealand High Court ruling, Justice Mander, August 27, 2020].

That was just the beginning, the moment Brenton Tarrant decided to open fire, ultimately putting his plan into action. His hateful journey, once conceived in his past, had been nurtured by those with whom he chose to associate with. His racist views had become darker by the month. His decision to become a mass murderer, a terrorist by his own definition and admission, was now a reality.

Catharsis from horror
Throughout the week of August 24-27, New Zealanders discovered how detailed Tarrant’s plan was. There was a risk, due to Tarrant’s guilty plea (lodged some months earlier) and his decision to refuse legal assistance, that details of his crimes – forensically applied to a timeline by detectives, scientists and prosecutors – would be sealed beyond the reach and rightful consideration of survivors. New Zealanders of all ethnicities, colour and religions too, needed to hear detail of how this monstrous act of terrorism could have occurred in this relatively peaceful land.

Officially, the High Court summarised the charges:

“The Offender pleaded guilty to 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of committing a terrorist act after shooting worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch. Court held that no minimum period of imprisonment would be sufficient to satisfy the purpose of sentencing. Offender sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under s 103 (2A) Sentencing Act 2002.”

There was also a concern, that Tarrant, who had the legal right to address the High Court, would use that opportunity to express his white extremist ideology. As a preventive measure, the High Court’s Justice Mander applied tight controls on media, and insisted Tarrant would be withdrawn from the Court should he begin such a tirade.

Victims and survivors were offered the right to speak their impact statements to the court and, significantly to tell Tarrant what they thought of him, and of the true consequences his actions had had on their lives.

Initially, 60 people wished to read their statements to the court and to the killer. Others, after observing how their fellow Muslims accounts somehow were beneficial, also wished to have their experiences told.

Some spoke of how Tarrant had failed in his purpose, as their faith had strengthened since the murders, that they as a community had become stronger, and how loved they had felt when New Zealanders of all colours embraced them as valued members of the nation’s family. A common account reiterated how ‘you sought to divide us, to alienate us. You failed’.

While in court, Tarrant’s deportment was passive, absolutely. Whenever he was ushered into the court, his hands and legs bound in shackles, he was assisted by officers to sit before the packed public gallery. When the judge addressed him, he was respectfully at full attention. When addressed by his victims’ loved ones and survivors, he was attentive, although without emotion.

At one point, a murdered victims’ mother addressed Tarrant. She stated she had “no hate for him” as a person, that she forgave him. Tarrant acknowledged her with a nod. Began to blink rapidly and appeared to wipe a tear from his eye. Shortly after, New Zealanders learned that the killer had withdrawn his intention to address the court.

A total of 98 victims and loved ones read their impact statements to the court and to Tarrant. Some expressing distress and some anger. The killer was referred to as a “coward” by a school teacher, whose brother was murdered in cold blood. Another man, the son of a middle aged worshipper addressed Tarrant as a “maggot”. Another, that Tarrant was nothing but “rotten meat” to him. Three men concluded their account with a Muslim prayer and chanted Allahu Akbar while pointing defiantly at Tarrant.

The court observed in silence, noting the tragic recount of events told by those who suffer injuries from the bullet, the experience leaving physical, mental, emotional, social wounds as a consequence of Tarrant’s crimes – but none expressed a loss of faith in Islam nor of New Zealand as a community.

As Radio New Zealand reports: “One survivor, Dr Hamimah Tuyan left her two sons in Singapore to travel to the High Court in Christchurch to speak and honour her late husband, Zekeriya – the 51st victim to die.”

She told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report she wrestled for some time if she should write a statement. Once she came back to Christchurch she decided she would listen to every victim statement delivered in court: “I was just so inspired by the brave brothers and sisters – their words, their feelings. I’m just so glad that I actually wrote it and opted to read it. That was the only way I could represent my husband and my boys,” she said on live radio.

Dr Hamimah Tuyan said she felt a weight lift from her shoulders and then left everything in the hands of God and the judge.

“We were all calm after the last session and basically waited … listening to each and every word of Judge Mander’s sentence until the end – two hours.” [Radio New Zealand].

She, and many others, spoke of catharsis in having had the courage to speak of their experience and their strength, and of the bravery of their loved ones who died on 15 March 2019.

Cold blooded reality
Then came the judge’s ruling. For four hours, Justice Mander read a precise account of what happened that day. In a move that was welcomed by the victims and New Zealanders, Justice Mander spoke of each victim and of their character, of the circumstances of how each person died.

For the first time, New Zealanders learned of the cold blooded reality of the consequences of hate that tore at the heart of the Muslim community that day.

Accounts like:

“As you made your way down the hallway of the mosque to the main prayer area, you shot Ata Mohammad Ata Elayyan and Ali Elmadani, murdering both men. You then entered the main prayer room at the rear of the building. There were over 120 worshippers present. They had heard the gunfire. Appreciating that something was very wrong, they moved to each side of the large open prayer area to where there were single exits in each corner.

“When you entered the main prayer room you initially fired at worshippers who were lying on the ground. You shot Ziyaad Shah. You then turned to the two large groups gathered on each side of the prayer area. There was little chance of escape. You fired your semi-automatic firearm into the mass of people on one side of the room. The rate of fire was extremely rapid. You repeatedly moved your weapon across that side of the room before turning to the other group of trapped people on the opposite side.

“As you turned your semi-automatic weapon on these worshippers, Naeem Rashid ran at you. Despite being shot, he crashed into you, forcing you down on one knee and dislodging a magazine from your vest. Mr Rashid had been hit in the shoulder and, as he lay on his back, you fired further shots at him. Mr Rashid died but his bravery allowed a number of his fellow worshippers to escape.

“By this stage you had emptied a 60-round magazine. You replaced that with another. Standing in the middle of the room, you fired rapid bursts towards each side of the prayer room where people were trying to hide or were attempting to escape. After reloading yet again, you continued to shoot at persons lying prone or trying to escape. You discharged rapid bursts across both sides of the room before approaching individual victims and shooting them. As Ashraf Ragheb sought to escape from a side room down the hallway to the main entrance, you shot and killed him. Already there were many dead.

“You moved closer to each now piled group of people lying deceased, wounded or feigning death on each side of the main prayer room. Worshippers, who were either crying out for help or who appeared to be alive, were systematically shot in the head. One of those was a three-year-old child, Mucaad Ibrahim. He was clinging to his father’s leg and you murdered him with two aimed shots.”

The judge continued, detailing how Brenton Tarrant then made his way outside Al Noor Mosque.

“Outside you shot at people attempting to flee. You shot Mohammad Faruk in the back, killing him. Wasseim Daragmih and his four-year-old daughter received life-threatening wounds. You fired in the opposite direction, hitting Sazada Akhter in the spine. She will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life.

“Tarrant then returned to his vehicle. Quickly he rearmed himself with an assault rifle fitted with two 40 round magazines.

“You fired this weapon down a side driveway towards the back of the Mosque, murdering Muse Awale and Hamza Alhaj Mustafa, a 16-year-old boy who had escaped from the main prayer room and was sheltering behind vehicles. Another man, Mohammad Shamim Siddiqui, was critically wounded.

“You then returned to the main prayer room. As you entered you saw Md Hoq, who was wounded,sitting up against a window. You aimed one shot at Mr Hoq, killing him instantly, before firing further shots at a group of people lying in one corner. There were some 30 deceased or critically wounded worshippers in this mass of people. You delivered fatal shots to those who were still alive.

“You then reloaded your weapon and walked over to the group of people lying in the opposite corner and fired into them. You noticed Haji Nabi attempting to shelter behind a small wall. With two carefully aimed shots you murdered Mr Nabi before walking to within a metre of the piled group and firing further shots into those who were either deceased or mortally wounded. Any persons who showed signs of life were shot.”

The judge’s ruling continued on, every precise detail that the police, scientists, and prosecutors had discovered was read to Tarrant. The killer’s gaze remained attentive. Silently, he sat, emotionless, listening to every word.

Observers reflected on how Brenton Tarrant appeared a hollow shell of a human being. Immediately after his arrest, Tarrant presented as arrogant, remorseless, complaining to police that he was disappointed that he didn’t kill more people. He was then in peak physical condition, clearly having been working out regularly. But this week, he appeared without emotion, without purpose, passively listening to the accounts of victims and that of the judge detailing the facts of what he had done. He did not challenge the facts, rather he had accepted them as accurate, a true account of his crimes.

Justice Mander continued:

“After exiting the mosque for the second time you saw two women attempting to escape. You shot Ansi Karippakulam Alibava and Husna Ahmed. Ms Ahmed was killed. Ms Karippakulam Alibava was wounded. While she lay on the street, pleading for help, you murdered this defenceless young woman, firing two shots at her from point-blank range. You then returned to your vehicle and inflicted the indignity of driving over her body as she lay in front of the driveway from which you exited.”

Still, Tarrant remained emotionless, leaving some to ponder whether he was intent to create an enigma of himself, a mysterious figure who refused to offer any words or emotion upon which others may define him. Rather, he had earlier defined himself to appointed psychiatrists and psychologists as a “terrorist” and a “fascist”. He had stated to the clinicians, appointed to assess his personality and condition, that in the months leading up to the killings, he had sunken into despair, into a depression. That he was angry at the world and wanted to hurt it, damage it.

The child, the man:
Radio New Zealand investigated Brenton Tarrant’s background. The following segment is a paraphrase of that investigation.

Brenton Tarrant’s life experience was unremarkable, at least in the beginning. He was born on October 27, 1990 and raised in rural Australia, in a town called Grafton some 500km north of Sydney. He was the youngest of three siblings. His parents separated while he was still at school. He played sport (rugby league) but was overweight and was bullied, to a degree, by others of his age. His father worked as a rubbish collector, and his family was respected in the general Clarence Valley area.

One of Tarrant’s cousins told Australia’s 7News, there was little in his background that would have indicated problems ahead. But, when his father died of cancer when Tarrant was 20 years of age, he was crushed by the loss. He inherited A$500,000 from his fathers estate. Dabbled in investments. Then travelled extensively. It was during his overseas experience abroad, particularly in Europe, that he was radicalised.

Details are vague, but court accounts place him in France where he was attracted to white extremist groups with which he increasingly shared commonly held racist views. He continued to travel around Europe, and developed an interest in the countries that were once ruled by the Ottoman Empire, visiting historic battle sites. He travelled through greater Asia, visiting Pakistan and the border areas of Afghanistan.

Then, in August 2017 he emigrated to Dunedin, New Zealand. He joined a rifle club, acquired a firearms licence from the New Zealand Police, and joined a South Dunedin gym.

He kept largely to himself, isolating his ideas, his anger, his purpose from those around him.

Brenton Tarrant never sought to work in New Zealand and showed no intention to get a job.

Wider family members visited Tarrant while he lived in Dunedin. They returned to Australia, noting concerns to his immediate family that he was not in a good state of mind, and had shown them that he had many guns.

Then, as Radio New Zealand reported, Tarrant’s last message to the white extremist group on 8Chan came on 15 March 2019:

“’It’s been a long ride and … you are all top blokes and the best bunch of cobbers a man could ask for,”’Tarrant posted.

“Radio New Zealand noted: ‘His friends were faceless, his interactions existent only in cyberspace.’” [Radio New Zealand]

The courtroom account continued
Justice Mander:

“As you drove away from the Al Noor Mosque you continued to shoot at anyone who you considered should be the target of your hate. You discharged a shotgun at two men who appeared to be of African descent. A short distance on you saw Muhammad Nasir and his son walking towards the mosque dressed in traditional clothing. You again discharged the shotgun, seriously wounding Mr Nasir, before actioning the weapon again and pointing it directly at the boy who was trying to hide behind a wall. You pulled the trigger but it failed to fire.

“You then sped away, driving directly to the Linwood Islamic Centre. On the way you came abreast of another vehicle being driven by a Fijian man. You pointed your shotgun at him. Despite repeated attempts to discharge the shotgun it failed to fire.

“When you got to Linwood you approached the mosque on foot down a long driveway, armed with yet another firearm. You saw three people in and around a car. You shot Ghulam Hussain in the head, killing him, before firing at and wounding Muhammad Raza, who had got out of the other side of the vehicle. You shot another occupant of the car, Karam Bibi, before advancing up the driveway, where you saw Mr Raza attempting to find cover behind a fence. He attempted to retreat from you. Despite his pleas to spare him, you murdered him. A wounded Ms Bibi sought to hide in front of the vehicle. You walked to within metres of her as she lay prone with her head buried in her hands, stood over her, and killed her.”

Tarrant approached the mosque, passing a window. He saw a silhouette of a man. He shot him with a single shot to the head. The man’s name was Mohammed Khan.

With your weapon now empty, you ran down the driveway back to your vehicle. As you reached the car, Abdul Aziz Wahabazadah, who had courageously followed you down the driveway, challenged you. You retrieved another semi-automatic rifle from your vehicle and fired at him. He dived between some parked cars, before you walked back up the driveway to the main entrance to the mosque.

[Selwyn Manning’s author’s note: I wrote about this moment, in the German magazine Cicero.de in March 2019, shortly after the murders:]

“Inside Linwood Mosque was Abdul Aziz, a man who had gathered with his Muslim brothers. He had just begun his second prayer when he heard gunshots outside. At first he thought it was someone playing with firecrackers (fireworks). But then, within seconds, he heard people screaming.

“Mr Aziz picked up an EFTPOS (electronic funds transaction) machine from a table inside the mosque. He ran outside. He saw a man he describes as looking like a soldier. He said to the man: ‘Who are you?’ Mr Aziz then saw three people lying on the ground dead from shotgun blasts. He realised the man was the killer. He approached the attacker, threw the EFTPOS machine, hitting the killer, who in turn took from his vehicle a second firearm (a military style semi-automatic assault rifle) and fired four to five shots at Abdul Aziz, missing him. Then, in an attempt to lure the killer away from other people, Mr Aziz shouted at the killer from behind a car: ‘Come, I’m here. Come I’m here!’

“Mr Aziz said he didn’t want the killer to go inside the mosque and kill more people. But the killer remained focused. He walked directly to the entrance, once inside the mosque he continued his killing spree. Survivors speak of the killer wearing ‘army clothes’, dressed in ‘SWAT combat clothing’, helmeted, wearing a vest and a balaclava… Written on the rifle were the words, ‘Welcome to hell’.” [Attentat in Christchurch – Willkommen in der Hölle]

In the High Court this week, Justice Mander continued:

“There were several people standing inside the entranceway and further into the building at whom you repeatedly fired. You killed Musa Patel. Walking further into the mosque, you shot and killed Linda Armstrong. People were huddled in corners of the room or trying to escape as you fired your weapon, killing Mohamad Mohamedhosen. You continued to fire the semi-automatic rifle until it ran out of ammunition, at which point you dropped it and ran back to your vehicle.

“Mr Wahabazadah chased you down the driveway, yelling at you. You removed the bayonet from your vest but retreated in the face of his advance. As you began driving away, Mr Wahabazadah got close enough to throw one of your discarded weapons at your vehicle.

“After leaving the Linwood Mosque, your intention was to drive to Ashburton to attack another mosque, but your vehicle was rammed off the road by a police car and you were apprehended by two armed police officers. You were anxious not to be shot and offered no resistance,” Justice Mander read.

The judge then spoke about the character of each of those who were murdered, about people like:

“Haji Mohemmed Daoud Nabi was a 71-year-old who had been married to his wife for 46 years. He was a role model and leader to his family; a best friend to his children and to his wife. For them the pain and anguish never goes away. Mrs Nabi describes herself as ‘alive, but not living’.”

And…

“Ansi Karippakulam Alibava’s husband found her lying on the road. He sat down beside her until police told him it was not safe. He knew when ambulance staff were not treating her that she had died. He is devastated. He finds himself constantly reminded of the events of that day and the loss of his dear wife. He can find no solace.”

And…

“Ozair Kadir was training to be an airline pilot like his big brother. His death has left a scar on the hearts of his proud parents. His murder haunts his father.”

And…

“Sayyad Ahmad Milne was a precious 14-year-old boy with his whole life before him. His murder has left a huge hole in his parents’ hearts. Despite his father’s resilience and forgiveness, they grieve for him deeply.”

And… …

“Mucaad Aden Ibrahim was younger still — a three-year-old infant. His father described him as ‘the happiness of the household’ — a vibrant young boy who made friends with everyone he met. No family can recover from the murder of such a small child.”

In the end, Justice Mander considered what sentence is permitted under New Zealand law. As a liberal social democratic country, New Zealand repealed the death penalty for murder at the end of the 1950s.

After consideration, the judge sentenced Brenton Harrison Tarrant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole – which means, he will die in prison. This is the first time any accused has received this sentence in New Zealand.

Officially, the judge delivered his order:

“On each of the 51 charges of murder (charges 1-51) you are sentenced to life imprisonment. I order that you serve the sentences without parole.

“On each of the 40 charges of attempted murder (charges 52-91) you are sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 years’ imprisonment.

“On the charge of committing a terrorist act (charge 92) you are sentenced to life imprisonment.

“I also direct that the four psychiatric and psychological reports prepared for this proceeding be made available to the Department of Corrections.”

And then came the judge’s final order:

“Stand down.”

On writing this account, I am mindful that we cannot republish a summary of each of the victims when 91 people have been either killed or maimed by one man’s actions. It feels terribly selective when choosing who to include, and who to exclude from this report. How can one apply news values to people who have had their present and future stolen from them? One cannot.

Therefore, I encourage you, readers, to read the unabridged ruling from the New Zealand High Court. While upsetting, it will offer a sober account of what occurs when hatred is left to grow inside us, when others do not know how to react or challenge when hatred is expressed: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/R-v-Tarrant-sentencing-remarks-20200827.pdf

Also, there is this awful thing, this contemplation, this series of unanswered questions which remain after the killing ceases, well after the victims’ faces become one. Answers remain elusive even after the verdict is read, the sentence is delivered, and the survivors have been ushered home to pick up the pieces of their lives. We are left to wonder, why? That question, that one word, will haunt us for the rest of our days.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s reaction

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern:

“I want to acknowledge the strength of our Muslim community who shared their words in court over the past few days.

“You relived the horrific events of March 15 to chronicle what happened that day and the pain it has left behind.

“Nothing will take the pain away but I hope you felt the arms of New Zealand around you through this whole process, and I hope you continue to feel that through all the days that follow.

“The trauma of March 15 is not easily healed but today I hope is the last where we have any cause to hear or utter the name of the terrorist behind it. His deserves to be a lifetime of complete and utter silence.”

Alpha and Omega, as we began, so we close
At what point in time does an atrocity have a beginning? Is it when the first gunshot is fired? When the first victim is killed? When a killer first submits to thoughts of hatred, alienation, blame and decides to apply those emotions into physical action? Or, is it when racism is justified, when killing is considered defensible by those in whom one chooses to associate with, to support, to impress? Is it when one subscribes to another’s ideology of hate? Or when silence is a protector – chosen by reasonable people – when those around us speak of inhuman things?

Selwyn Manning is editor of Evening Report. A German language version of this article was published by Cicero.de magazine in Germany. We also invite you to view this week’s episode of A View from Afar with Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning where they discuss, in depth, the causes, impact and possible solutions when dealing with white extremism.

• Willkommen in der Hölle, Cicero.de, March 2019
• Christchurch Terror Attacks – New Zealand’s Darkest Hour

Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.

An Auckland University law professor says there is a risk the mosque terrorist could walk the streets of Sydney if he was deported to Australia to serve his life sentence.

After a four-day sentencing hearing in the High Court in Christchurch, Australian Brenton Tarrant, 29, was sentenced yesterday to spend the rest of his life in prison with no chance of parole.

Justice Cameron Mander’s sentence marked the first time in New Zealand’s history that the harshest punishment has been imposed.

• READ MORE: Mosque tragedy reports on Asia Pacific Report
• LISTEN: ‘He can just walk free’ – Professor Bill Hodge (4m15s) – First Up

Shortly after the sentencing, New Zealand First Leader and Foreign Minister Winston Peters said Tarrant should be deported to his home country.

But Professor Bill Hodge told RNZ First Up there was no law in place where a sentence could be transferred, so Australia would not have to keep to the terms of the sentence.

He told First Up a new law would be required in New Zealand – but more importantly, a new law would be needed in Australia.

“Because if he’s deported now, gets on a plane and goes over to Sydney, he can just walk free because there is no statutory authority, no power to enforce the New Zealand sentence in Australia at the moment.”

Rainbow Warrior spies transfer
New Zealand has been down this pathway before more than 30 years ago.

The two French spies in jail for 10 years for manslaughter in the 1985 bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour were allowed to be transferred for three years in military detention on Hao atoll in French Polynesia under a deal agreed to with France by former prime minister David Lange.

Before very long both prisoners were back home.

“We got burned quite frankly…”

Hodge said moving the terrorist would have to be with Australia’s cooperation and he could not see why they would agree to it.

“We don’t know exactly what their attitude is …let’s not go down that pathway until we get something really sealed in cement over there to make sure he will stay inside and not become part of a reality TV show, which is what happened to one person who came back from [jail in] Indonesia.”

Morrison open to prospect
The ABC is reports that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has left the door open to working with New Zealand on the issue, but there would be some hurdles to overcome.

Despite the strong ties between Australia and New Zealand, there is no formal prisoner transfer deal between the two countries.

Prisoner transfers are different to extraditions – which is when one country demands another help to secure someone wanted for an offence, and have them shipped over to face investigation and trial.

International law expert Professor Don Rothwell, from the Australian National University, said there were multiple options that could be pursued if the transfer was on the cards.

But he said the most likely was what he described as the “David Hicks option”.

Hicks, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and spent time in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, was sentenced by a military commission in the United States.

“Australia and the US negotiated a special agreement purely to deal with the Hicks situation, and that was appropriate given the security concerns and legal issues,” Professor Rothwell said.

The key difference
The key difference is that Hicks only had to serve another nine months in jail (his conviction was set aside by a US court in 2015).

The mosque gunman’s sentence expires when he dies. So, keeping him behind bars for the rest of his life would need to be an explicit term in any agreement.

There are two other potential options for transferring him to Australia.

The first would be for the two countries to negotiate a new bilateral prisoner transfer treaty. The second possibility would be for New Zealand to sign up to an international convention, such as the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.

“The Christchurch gunman is going to be an irritant in Australia-New Zealand relations for some time,” Melissa Conley Tyler from the Asia Institute at the University of Melbourne said.

“New Zealand is very aware that when its citizens are convicted of crimes in Australia, we deport them back to New Zealand – admittedly after they’ve served their sentences – and this is for much less serious crimes.

“From a New Zealand perspective, this is a terrorist who is an Australian citizen and New Zealand taxpayers will be footing the bill for his incarceration for the rest of his life.

“So even though Australia may not be legally obliged to agree to a transfer, I’d expect that New Zealand will continue to make this request.”

‘Proud’ of NZ’s justice system
In relation to how the justice system has operated with regard to the arrest and trial of the terrorist, from the police response on the day of the 15 March 2019 attacks to the conclusion with the handing down of the sentence yesterday, Professor Hodge said it had been through a stress test and had been proved “fit for purpose”.

As a teacher in a law school it had made him feel proud, he said.

“I think all New Zealanders were brought into that courtroom by the judge by his very powerful speech. It was denunciation; it was speaking for the nation; and it showed a unique purpose that we don’t see very often in New Zealand courtrooms.

“I think justice has come to the fore in a very positive way and I’m proud of it.”

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Where to get help:
Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason:

• Healthline: 0800 611 116
• Daily wellbeing actions from the Mental Health Foundation
• Covid-19 mental health and wellbeing resources

ANALYSIS: By Alexander Gillespie, of the University of Waikato

Was Brenton Tarrant’s silence and acceptance of sentence in court a final act to expand his notoriety? Was his disavowal of previously expressed ideological views a trick?

A person capable of planning the Christchurch mosque attacks so methodically may well have mapped the last public chapter, too. By saying little and expressing no real remorse, alone and without even his own lawyer, was he hoping the world would see a determined stoicism, an enigma?

Or did he simply realise the controls around court behaviour were so well designed that he couldn’t hijack proceedings?

• READ MORE: Remembering my friend, and why there is no right way to mourn the Christchurch attacks
• Christchurch mosque attacks: ‘Inhuman’ terrorist jailed for life without parole

For now at least, we can’t know. All we can say for sure is what the High Court in New Zealand has heard over the days leading to today’s sentence of life in prison with no minimum parole: using overwhelming firepower against defenceless civilians he took the lives of 51 men, women and children, injured many more and left even more bereft.

His silence notwithstanding, then, he is not an enigma.

As the first person in New Zealand to be convicted of terrorism, he comes from the same dark place that spawned the likes of Anders Breivik in Norway, Darren Osborne (who drove a truck into Muslim worshippers in London in 2017) and Dylann Roof (who attacked black parishioners in a South Carolina church in 2015).

Tarrant had even carved the names of Alexandre Bissonette (who attacked a mosque in Quebec in 2017) and Luca Traini (who attacked African migrants in Italy in 2018) on the magazines of his guns.

So now he joins that list of mass murderers, animated by a hatred of tolerance, equality and multicultural values, who came to believe indiscriminate violence against unarmed civilians was justified.

The first ever non-parole sentence
If this was America, he could have been sentenced to death or given a cumulative jail sentence of over 1,000 years. Neither option is available in New Zealand. There are many good reasons for having no death penalty, including in this case the denial of any aspirations to martyrdom.

• READ MORE: Jailing the Christchurch terrorist will cost New Zealand millions. A prisoner swap with Australia would solve more than one problem
  

The most extreme penalty New Zealand law does allow is jail for life without any minimum parole period. Although a sentence of 30 years without parole has been imposed, life without parole has never been given.

It is fair to say that Judge Mander, who did an excellent job throughout, met public expectation with his decision to ensure Tarrant never again walks outside a guarded wall.

What the law demands
Such a sentence is justified if the court is satisfied no minimum term of imprisonment would be enough to satisfy the main considerations: accountability, denouncement, deterrence or protecting the community.

In short, the Sentencing Act sets out the purposes of sentencing: to hold the offender to account for the harm done to the victims and the wider community, to denounce the crime and deter others from replicating those acts.

Supplementary principles a sentencing judge must consider include the gravity of the offending and its seriousness compared to other types of offences. The judge is required “to impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed” (unless there are mitigating circumstances).

The only mitigation that would have carried weight in this case was Tarrant pleading guilty and therefore shortening proceedings. Other mitigating factors, such as remorse or offers to make amends, were not to be seen or were deemed not genuine.

Placing the victims first
The other principle Judge Mander had to take into account relates to the effect of the offending on the victims. As the 91 victim impact statements heard over three days made clear, those victims displayed remarkable fortitude, bravery, wisdom and humanity.

But the black hole of pain the killer left in his wake is near incomprehensible.

Further aggravating factors justifying this sentence were that these were pre-meditated crimes of hate, terrorism, particular cruelty and involved the use of weapons.

Tarrant ticked all of the boxes. The enormity of his crimes made them unlike anything that had gone before. New Zealand has experienced mass shootings in the past, and murders based on racial hatred, but nothing of this scale.

On top of that, no one had employed the internet to spread hatred as happened in Christchurch, nor has anyone pleaded guilty to an act of terrorism before.

When all of these considerations were put on the scales of justice, Judge Mander would have seen that, small acts of mitigation aside, an unprecedented sentence was the only appropriate outcome for an unprecedented crime.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law at the University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.

The man who carried out the New Zealand mosque attacks in Christchurch on 15 March 2019 has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of ever leaving jail.

Australian Brenton Tarrant, 29, had earlier admitted 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one charge of terrorism.

Justice Cameron Mander this afternoon imposed the sentence – the harshest available to the court.

• READ MORE: Muslim community leaders respond to sentencing of the mosque terrorist – RNZ video
• ‘Congratulations Mr Terrorist, you have failed,’ girl, 15, tells gunman
• Other Asia Pacific Report coverage of the mosque massacre and justice

It marks the first time a convicted person has ever been imprisoned in New Zealand with no possibility of parole.

Tarrant murdered 51 worshippers at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre on 15 March last year.

He also shot and injured 40 more in an attempt to murder them.

Tarrant was also sentenced to life imprisonment on one count of engaging in a terrorist act.

First sentencing under Terrorism Suppression Act
It marked the first time anyone was sentenced for offending under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

The terrorist did not oppose being jailed without the possibility of parole.

A packed public gallery and seven other courtrooms filled with victims, their families and supporters watched as the sentence was handed down.

They shared hugs and tears after court was adjourned.

Before handing down the sentence, Justice Cameron Mander read through the names of the murder victims, relaying details of their lives and the shattered families they left behind to the terrorist.

He then detailed the injuries of the 40 survivors of the attack.

The survivors had to endure long-lasting and deep-seated trauma as a result of the attack, Justice Mander said.

Mosques ‘places of sanctuary’
“The mosques were places of sanctuary, this country too … was also seen as a place of refuge and safety by many of those you targeted,” he said.

“I have no doubt you came to New Zealand and targeted its Muslim community for that very reason.”

The attack was inhuman, the judge said.

“You showed no mercy.

“You ignored the pleas of the wounded to be spared. You advanced on them, stood over them and shot them.”

The terrorist was motivated by a “base hatred of people perceived to be different from yourself”.

“It is not apparent that you are genuinely remorseful for your actions apart from the circumstances in which you now find yourself,” Justice Mander said.

The terrorist’s hateful ideology was anathema to the values of New Zealand’s society.

“It has no place here. It has no place anywhere,” the judge said.

‘A painful and harrowing mark in NZ’s history’

Prosecutor Mark Zarifeh told the court Tarrant was “clearly New Zealand’s worst murderer”.

“He has caused permanent and immeasurable suffering and harm to the victims’ families, the Muslim community and to the rest of New Zealand,” Zarifeh said.

He described the Christchurch terror attack as a “painful and harrowing mark in New Zealand’s history”.

The attack was premeditated, extremely violent, brutal, cruel and callous.

“The offender demonstrated calculated and militaristic determination in carrying out this plan,” Zarifeh said.

“The significance of the location of the offending – two places of worship – to the victims cannot be overlooked.

“The calculated sadism and depravity exhibited by the offender cannot be overstated.”

His offending had caused real fear of similar terror attacks in future and imposing life imprisonment without parole was a necessary deterrent.

Tarrant’s actions were designed to “inflict extreme fear, horror and loss to the Muslim and non-Caucasian population of Christchurch”.

Zarifeh detailed a report from April following the terrorist speaking to Corrections.

“The offender’s statements are often paradoxical in the report. He is noted by the report writer as showing no remorse, talking about his victims in the abstract, showing no concern for the families of those affected and speaking in a matter of fact manner about the offending,” Zarifeh said.

Terrorist admits he had a ‘poisoned emotional state’
“However, the offender himself goes onto describe the offending as unnecessary, abhorrent and irrational, and that nothing good came from the offending.

“The offender told the report writer the political and social views he had to justify the offending were not real. He said he had a poisoned emotional state and was terribly unhappy. He said he felt ostracised by society and wanted to damage society as an act of revenge.

“Yet at the same time the offender described the offending as definitely an act of terrorism and he goes onto state that he wasn’t racist or xenophobic and didn’t target his victims based on their ethnicity.

“He said he targeted a religion but then claimed he had no issue with Islam.

“Similar changes in view and disavowing his previously held ideology have also been expressed to a psychologist and psychiatrist recently. However, the reliability of this in their view remains questionable.”

Standby counsel, Pip Hall QC, told the court he only had one submission to make to the court.

“Mr Tarrant does not oppose the application that he should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole,” Hall said.

Submission draws surprise
The submission drew surprise from the public gallery, with one man saying “wow”.

Justice Mander asked the terrorist directly if he wished to make any further submission.

“No. Thank you,” Tarrant said from his seat in the dock.

When asked by the judge if he understood he had the right to make further submissions, he nodded in acknowledgement.

Kerry Cook, who was appointed as amicus curiae – a friend of the court, argued against life imprisonment.

He pointed to three factors which made such a sentence unjust – his guilty pleas, his potential for rehabilitation, and the constitutionality of life without parole.

“There must be some tangible credit for those pleas which have avoided a long and costly trial,” Cook said.

‘Recalibration’ in his ideology
“This court has seen through some comments by the prisoner there has been some recalibration in his ideology. His manifesto made it clear he would not be pleading guilty and yet he did. The views he held then are not the views he holds now, and there may be some further shift in future.”

Lastly, Cook submitted imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole would breach New Zealand’s Bill of Rights, specifically the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment and the right not to be arbitrarily detained.

He called for a sentence of life imprisonment with a finite non-parole period. However, Tarrant would only leave jail once his risk to society had appropriately diminished.

“Life does mean life if an undue risk is still present,” Cook said.

At the time of the terror attack, the terrorist had no prior criminal history.

Victims sought harshest sentence
Many of the victims who have been delivering their harrowing statements in court this week urged the judge to impose the sentence.

The possibility of such a sentence was one of the many complexities facing Justice Mander, the Law Society said earlier this week.

A steady stream of people started entering the High Court from the time the doors opened at 8am today.

White roses were handed out to the victims as they arrived in court. They were donated as a gesture of support from two women.

The last group of 93 victims read their impact statements yesterday afternoon – a marked increase on the 66 that were expected.

Community adviser and former Christchurch city councillor Raf Manji, who delivered some of the impact statements on behalf of the victims, said victims had been empowered by the way the hearing had been handled.

“In the end it has been a real healing process for a lot of people,” Manji said.

The session today began with the Crown making its submissions before Pip Hall QC, who has been on standby, made submissions on behalf of Tarrant.

Late yesterday it emerged that Tarrant, who is representing himself, would not address the judge to offer any mitigating factors to explain the motivation behind his crimes.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Where to get help:
“Need to Talk?” Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason:

Healthline: 0800 611 116

Daily wellbeing actions from the Mental Health Foundation

Covid-19 mental health and wellbeing resources

Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.

The contrast cannot be more stark. The bravery of a 15-year-old girl, and the cowardice of a 29-year-old terrorist.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant is facing sentencing in the High Court at Christchurch for the murder of 51 worshippers at two mosques on 15 March 2019.

He has admitted 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

• READ MORE: The widows of Shuhada podcast – and other RNZ reports
• NZ mosque terrorist’s sentencing: Gunman looks like ‘shell of a man’
• Mosque victim’s mother tells terrorist: ‘You killed your own humanity’

This afternoon the final victims spoke to the court. Just before the court adjourned for the day, it was confirmed that Tarrant would not address the court in his own defence.

A 15-year-old girl, who cannot be named, this afternoon confronted the terrorist directly during her victim impact statement.

“Why did you kill my dad? Why did you take the most important person away?” she asked him.

“He will always be in my heart and the hearts of those who love him. But you, you will be alone in prison.

‘The only one who lost everything is you’
“The only one who lost everything was you. Congratulations Mr Terrorist, you have failed.”

The terrorist’s cowardice was often pointed out during this afternoon’s session.

Sehan El Wakil told the terrorist he was a coward.

“If you were a real man you would have faced them [the victims], face-to-face, not with a gun behind their backs,” she said.

Abdul Aziz Wahabzadah, who chased Tarrant from Linwood Islamic Centre using an eftpos machine, told the terrorist he should thank Allah he did not catch him on 15 March 2019.

“He acts very tough but, to be honest with you, he’s nothing,” Wahabzadah said.

After the attack, police officers asked him for a description of the terrorist: “I told them, ‘He doesn’t look like a man’.”

Wahabzadah accompanied officers to the police station to give a statement.

It was there he found out the terrorist had been arrested.

‘Give me 15 minutes alone … with him’
“Your Honour, I pleaded to the police that day. I said, ‘Please give me 15 minutes alone in the cell with him, I want to see how many guts he has without a gun’,” he told the court.

“But they refused. I know because they have to follow the law.

“I saw the fear in his eyes when he was running for his life, your Honour.”

The terrorist was a coward, he said.

“You didn’t think about your mum, you didn’t think about your sister, how are they going to face the world with your coward act. You put their lives in danger. But you’re a coward, selfish, you didn’t care about them. I feel sorry for them. But not for you,” Wahabzadah said.

The government would have “saved a lot of money” if he was able to get his hands on Tarrant on that day, Wahabzadah said.

“You never forget these two eyes that you run from,” he said, finishing his victim impact statement.

Justice Cameron Mander stopped Wahabzadah from leaving.

Judge acknowledges courage
“Mr Wahabzadah, before you go. I’ve seen the video and I want to acknowledge your courage,” Justice Mander said, as the public gallery broke into applause.

The theme of Tarrant’s cowardice continued through the afternoon.

“You are a terrorist. You are a racist. You are a cold-blooded murderer who hides behind his weapons,” Feroz Ditta told Tarrant.

“Your time will come – that I can assure you, mate.

“For the rest of your life you won’t be able to embrace your parents and your family, and be part of their lives.

“You will no longer be able to hug your mother. They are at a loss because they have lost their son for the rest of their lives.”

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Where to get help:

Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason

Healthline: 0800 611 116

Daily wellbeing actions from the Mental Health Foundation

Covid-19 mental health and wellbeing resources

Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.

The last of the victim impact statements were being heard in a New Zealand court today on the third day of sentencing of the Christchurch mosque terrorist.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant is facing sentencing for the murder of 51 worshippers at two mosques on 15 March 2019.

The 29-year-old will also be sentenced on 40 counts of attempted murder and one charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

• READ MORE: Mosque victim’s mother tells terrorist: ‘You killed your own humanity’

So far the court has heard from 56 victims of the attack.

About a dozen more are expected to speak today before the Crown makes its submissions on the sentence to be handed down to Tarrant.

The convicted terrorist will then have the opportunity to speak.

A standby lawyer is available to assist Tarrant if necessary.

Heavy with emotion and anger
Yesterday was heavy with emotion and anger.

Al Noor Mosque survivor Mirwais Waziri drew applause from the public gallery when he told Tarrant he had lifted a burden from him.

“In this whole time, 17 years, since I was living in New Zealand… people were calling me – because I was from Afghanistan – they were calling me, for fun or a joke or intentionally, a terrorist,” he said.

“But you took that from me.

“Today you are called a terrorist and you proved to the world that I was not and us, as Muslims, were not.”

The court also heard from Wasseim Sati Ali Daragmih, who was wounded in the attack.

“Good afternoon everyone – except you,” Daragmih said pointing at Tarrant.

The remark elicited a smile from the terrorist.

‘You have not succeeded’
“You think your actions have destroyed our community and shaken our faith, but you have not succeeded.

“You have made us come together with more determination and strength.

“So you have failed completely. So you have failed completely.”

The convicted terrorist nodded following the remarks about him being where he deserved to be and deserving the death penalty.

Nathan Smith, who converted to Islam about nine years ago, recalled the death of a small child at Al Noor Mosque.

“After you left Mosque Al Noor I was surrounded by the injured, the dying and the dead. I held a three-year-old boy in my arms praying he was alive – he was not. You took him away. He was three.”

Weight off his chest
A victim of the Christchurch mosque attacks said speaking directly to the gunman in the High Court took a weight off his chest.

Temel Atacocugu was shot nine times, and had his fifth surgery yesterday after giving his victim impact statement.

Speaking outside the High Court this morning, Atacocugu said he was nervous about what Tarrant could say, when the gunman has his only opportunity to speak later today.

But he said he felt empowered by his own opportunity to talk, having implored the gunman to “think for the rest of his life [about] what he did”.

“I passed the messages to him, and he was listening … it was a very emotional time for me,” he said.

“When I said my last words, kia kaha, then I believe a big weight has come off my shoulders, and feel stronger than before,” he said.

‘Cathartic’ experience for survivors
Former Christchurch city councillor Raf Manji, who is supporting mosque attack victims in court, said it had been a “cathartic” experience for people to let out 18 months of hurt and anger.

He said the process was helping people feel less like victims and more like survivors.

“The sentencing organisation has been good and it’s run really smoothly, so that has helped with people’s anxiety that they were feeling prior to the sentencing,” he said.

“But generally people are feeling positive about the experience, about the opportunity to speak, the opportunity to get out – almost expel some of the pain that they’ve been carrying.”

Manji said people’s initial apprehension about what Tarrant might say was diminishing.

“I mean this guy looks a shell of a person,” he said.

“He’s listening to the submissions and occasionally sort of acknowledging bits of them. So he’s paying attention but I don’t get the sense this is a guy who is going to use this as a platform.

‘Disappearing from people’s view’
“He’s in a way disappearing from people’s view. I mean one of the statements yesterday said you’re already kind of dead to me.”

Rashid Omar, whose son Tariq was murdered at Al Noor Mosque, recounted the pain he felt at learning of his son’s death.

“I remember being there with my kids and hugging them and I started crying with them. As a dad I’m meant to be strong for my family and as a dad be invincible in their eyes,” he said.

“I could not hold my emotion together to be strong for my family because I was hurting so much inside to hear that I had lost my baby Tariq this day.

“As a parent no matter how old your children are they will still be your baby forever.”

Ibrahim Abdelhalim, the imam at Linwood Islamic Centre, was leading Friday prayers when the terrorist opened fire.

“The gunfire was very fast and repetitive like a submachine gun,” he said.

“It was a horrible time.

‘Trapped inside the mosque’
“We had nowhere to go as we were trapped inside the mosque with the defendant standing at the entrance.

“The defendant stopped firing and I saw all the people who had been shot. Some were injured and some were dead.”

The widow of Naeem Rashid, who saved lives by charging at Tarrant as he carried out the slaughter at Al Noor Mosque, told the court of the difficulties of picking up the pieces of her life after losing her husband and eldest son, Talha.

Ambreen Naeem said her husband’s bravery brought her some solace, but it would never fill the void of his loss.

Naeem Rashid charged at the gunman as he shot at worshippers trying to flee the main prayer room at Al Noor Mosque. He crashed into Tarrant despite being shot and his actions allowed others to escape the prayer room.

Ambreen Naeem’s youngest surviving boy is only seven.

“I had to tell him that his father and Talha were very brave but that they aren’t coming home,” she said. “I had to tell him that they were in heaven with Allah.”

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Where to get help:
Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason

Healthline: 0800 611 116

Daily wellbeing actions from the Mental Health Foundation

Covid-19 mental health and wellbeing resources

Warning: This story includes details of the 15 March 2019 mosque terrorism attacks.

New Zealand’s High Court will hear from further victims of the Christchurch terror attack today.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant, who has admitted 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of terrorism in relation to attacks at two Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019, is being sentenced in the High Court in Christchurch.

The hearing is set down for four days with Justice Cameron Mander expected to hand down his sentence sometime on Thursday.

• READ MORE: Jailing the Christchurch terrorist will cost NZ millions. A prisoner swap with Australia?
• Research looks at media’s unprecedented response to the March 15 attacks
• Tight security at NZ court for start of sentence hearing

Yesterday the court heard from 24 victims of the attack.

More than 60 victims are expected to detail their experiences and the effect of the shootings on their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

The hearing started with prosecutor Barnaby Hawes reading the summary of facts.

It detailed the specifics of 221 shots fired at the two mosques.

Preparation for attack
In preparation for the attack, Tarrant drove from his home in Dunedin to Christchurch on 8 January 2019.

He parked across the road from Al Noor Mosque and flew a drone above it, taking particular note of the entry and exit doors.

He made detailed notes of when the mosque was frequented.

On 15 March 2019 he made the same journey and would target Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre.

He also planned to target Ashburton Mosque and his intention was to burn down all three houses of worship.

After his arrest Tarrant told police officers his only regret was not killing more.

Victims were able to confront Tarrant for the first time since the attack.

Misguided and misled
Gamal Fouda, imam of the Al Noor Mosque who was present on the day of the attack, told the gunman he was misguided and misled.

“We are a peaceful and loving community. We did not deserve your actions,” he said.

“Your hatred is unnecessary. If you have done anything you have brought the community closer together with your evil actions.”

The family of Ata Elayyan, who was murdered at Al Noor Mosque, told the convicted terrorist he not only attacked Canterbury’s Muslim community but New Zealand and all humanity.

Ata’s father, Mohammad Alayan, who was also injured in the attack, recited the Quran to the court.

The family heard no word of Ata for days after the attack.

“For three days we did not have any news on our beloved Ata. Then the devastating news came. Ata had passed away,” he said.

‘You took souls of 51 people’
Ata’s mother, Maysoon Salama, told Tarrant he had not only killed her son, but his own humanity.

“You gave yourself the authority to take the souls of 51 innocent people. Their only crime in your eyes was being Muslim,” she said to him.

“You terrorised the whole of New Zealand and saddened the world. You killed your own humanity and I don’t think the world will forgive you for your horrible crime against humanity.”

Janna Ezat, whose son Hussein Al-Umari was murdered at Al Noor Mosque, told the gunman she forgives him.

“I decided to forgive you Mr Tarrant because I don’t have hate. I don’t have revenge,” she said directly to the terrorist.

“In our Muslim faith we say … if we are able to forgive, forgive.

“I forgive you. Damage was done and Hussein will never be here so I have only one choice to forgive you.”

Only show of emotion
Tarrant nodded in acknowledgement of her words before blinking profusely and wiping one of his eyes.

It was his only show of emotion during the day.

Hussein Al-Umari’s sister, Aya Al-Umari, told the court she lost her best friend in the attack, whose birthday was only one day apart from hers.

“My best friend was executed in cold-blooded murder out of hatred,” she said.

“I still have the urge to pick up the phone and talk to my brother, tell him about my day and rant to him because he’s the only one that would understand.

“But now that you’ve killed him, I’ve turned to God and that’s made my faith in Islam stronger.”

Mazharuddin Syed Ahmed, who witnessed the attack on the Linwood Islamic Centre, said the victims expected to be safe in New Zealand.

“We all come from countries where these things happen,” he said.

“We came to New Zealand because it is safe, but after the shooting when we saw how people respected us and treated us all well that made us feel good about New Zealand.”

Some will never recover
Christchurch’s Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner told RNZ Morning Report that while the sentencing will bring the legal process to an end, many victims and many in the community will carry the tragedy with them their whole lives.

“It may provide some closure, but some may unfortunately never find closure. This is something that some will never forget or ever recover from.

“This sentencing really is bringing back to the people of Christchurch … a really strong reminder of what happened. Some of the details that are now coming out with the victim statements, and the effect this has really had on those who were most directly effected, it just serves to remind us how absolutely horrific this event was.

“The events of the 15th of March certainly shocked all of us in Christchurch, but you’ll recall how the whole community wrapped around the Muslim community; how people came together in love and compassion and really supported each other and showed strong support for the Muslim community.

“There’s a really strong sense of that at the moment as well… the togetherness, the love and compassion.”

Turner said the court has provided good support services for those taking part, and he encouraged those who needed it to make use of it.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

The High Court in Christchurch was ringed with heavy security today for the sentencing of the New Zealand mosque attack gunman, Brenton Tarrant.

RNZ’s reporter in Christchurch said police snipers had been seen on rooftops and roads near the city’s justice precinct are blocked off.

Other court activity was limited to urgent matters only.

• READ MORE: Jailing the Christchurch terrorist will cost NZ millions. A prisoner swap with Australia?
• Research looks at media’s unprecedented response to the March 15 attacks

Strict cyber precautions for watching the trial via a livestream were also in place.

Dozens of mosque shooting victims and their families began waiting outside the court in the rain early today, with more than 60 expected to have their say.

The High Court hearing was set to start at 10am and is expected to take about four days.

It was the first time Tarrant had appeared in person in the dock since his first appearance shortly after the March 15 attacks.

He has admitted 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Embargoed until 1pm adjournment
Nothing that was happening in the courtroom could be reported until after the 1pm adjournment.

The nature, scale and media coverage of the massacre positions the crime as a highly unusual court case, complicated by New Zealand’s second covid-19 outbreak.

Despite this, the four-day hearing will follow the usual sentencing format aside from the reading of the summary of facts, outlining the admitted crime, at the start of the day.

This is expected to take some time, given the number of charges, and will be the first time the victims and their families will hear the massacre detailed in open court.

Next, 66 victims will share their victim impact statements, in person, by way of recording or through a supporter, in a stage of the sentencing that will likely take several days.

Crown prosecutors Mark Zarifeh and Barnaby Hawes will then make legal submissions before an amicus curiae, a lawyer assisting the court, will address the judge.

Given the 29-year-old has elected to represent himself at sentencing, either he or a standby lawyer appointed by the court will present legal submissions for the defence.

He will then be sentenced by Justice Mander.

‘Hero’ relieved hearing under way
The man hailed as a hero for saving lives by chasing the Christchurch gunman away from the Linwood mosque is relieved sentencing day is finally here.

Abdul Aziz threw an eftpos machine and gun at the attacker which scared the shooter off in March last year.

He is one of hundreds of victims coming face to face with the convicted terrorist today.

Abdul spoke to RNZ before heading into the High Court with his two sons and is glad the final chapter of his nightmare is ending.

“We are looking forward to these days actually because we have waited long enough for these days. We just want to close this chapter and move on. It’s a mixed emotion,” he said.

He said he wanted to stay strong and not show the gunman how hard it had really been.

“I wrote down the impact statement but I just gave it to the judge to read it. But I don’t want [the convicted terrorist] to know how much impact he has had on us. A lot of people’s lives have completely [changed]. We’re not really the same persons we used to be.”

Emotions expected to flood back
Abdul Aziz said he was not fearful of seeing Tarrant in person but said he expected memories and emotions to come flooding back.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

There is no death penalty in New Zealand, unlike the United States. But Christchurch terrorist Brenton Tarrant, due for sentencing this week, will be going to jail for a very long time.

A minimum of 17 years is required for a murder committed as part of a terrorist act, and Tarrant has admitted to 51 such murders (among other crimes).

Also unlike the US, New Zealand does not allow cumulative sentences on indeterminate sentences (such as life imprisonment). But it does allow for the imposition of what could become an indeterminate sentence with no minimum parole period.

READ MORE: Will life mean life when the Christchurch mosque killer is sentenced?

To lock Tarrant up in perpetuity will be very expensive. He is currently costing just over NZ$4,930 a day due to the extra levels of security, considerably more than the average of about $338 for a standard prisoner.

The next two years alone will cost New Zealand taxpayers about $3.6 million. The final sum for the 28-year-old terrorist will depend on how long he lives and the ongoing level of security he requires. If he has a normal life span the cost may be in the tens of millions per decade.

Should he stay or go?
In the minds of many, the costs and hassle of incarcerating Tarrant will be an acceptable price to pay. Foreign citizen or not, there is a symbolic and ethical responsibility for us to keep the rat we caught.

New Zealanders old enough to remember are still jaundiced from the last time we caught terrorists, the French secret agents Dominque Prieur and Alain Mafart who were directly linked to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985.

The two were handed back to France as part of a reconciliation deal. But the French government quickly broke the terms of agreement, repatriating the prisoners from their detention on the South Pacific atoll of Hao to a normal life in France.

Another such act of bad faith is unlikely, as Tarrant has no government in his corner arguing for his repatriation. He does, however, have a government behind him that has implemented specific legislation to obtain the transfer of its own citizens when incarcerated in foreign countries, to serve their sentences on home soil.

This is not unusual legislation. Although there is no overarching international law, regional and bilateral initiatives are common. Australia’s International Transfer of Prisoners Act, for example, aims to facilitate the transfer of prisoners between Australia and countries with which it has agreements.

Prisoners can serve their prison sentences in their country of nationality or in countries with which they have community ties. There are strong economic, social and humanitarian reasons for this approach.

The deportation of ex-prisoners will increase
Here is the catch. New Zealand has no such relationship with Australia. Unlike most comparable countries, we have little interest in the international transfer of prisoners, preferring to take a hard line when it comes to Kiwis in foreign jails.

Partly because of this, since 2014 Australia has allowed non-citizens to have their visas cancelled on character grounds, including having been sentenced to prison for more than 12 months.

So, although New Zealand prisoners in Australian jails may not be transferred to serve their sentences at home, they will be deported at the end of their sentences.

From early 2015 to mid-2018, about 1,300 New Zealander ex-prisoners had been deported from Australia. After a brief interlude due to covid-19, the deportations resumed.

It is no exaggeration to say this policy (and the cruel standards by which it is applied) are a significant irritant between the two countries.

If it doesn’t change it’s likely to get worse, too. As of mid-2019, New Zealand prisoners made up 3 percent of the total Australian prisoner population (43,028) – about 1,100 people.

Conversely, there were only about 35 Australians in our jails, out of about 320 foreigners in New Zealand’s much smaller prison population (9,324 as of March, 2019).

Time for new deal on expat prisoners
Somewhere in the middle of this darkness there is a glimmer of hope – the chance of a deal and a better relationship between the two countries.

Sign a prisoner transfer agreement. Exchange Tarrant and make him serve out his sentence in Australia, as ruled by the New Zealand judicial system.

Revise the rules for the deportation of New Zealanders who have committed crimes in Australia but been resident for a long time. Move the threshold for deportation from one to three years in prison and make it reciprocal.

Thereafter, recent arrivals in either country who commit serious crimes (such as Brenton Tarrant) are transferred home to serve their time in accordance with their sentences.

Do this and we might start to move forward.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, at the University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The man due to go on trial for the mosque attacks in Christchurch on 15 March 2019 has today pleaded guilty to all the charges he was facing.

At the High Court in Christchurch, Brenton Tarrant admitted 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Until today he had denied all of the charges and was scheduled to stand trial in June. The guilty plea means he has become New Zealand’s first convicted terrorist.

READ MORE: ‘They are us’: An RNZ online memorial to the lost

• Previous Asia Pacific Reports on the massacre

The 29-year-old Australian showed no emotion as he appeared via audio visual link from Auckland in the High Court at around 10am.

No explanation for Tarrant’s change of heart was given during today’s hearing. He has been remanded in custody until May.

No sentencing date has been set as the courts continue to grapple with widespread disruption from the Covid-19 pandemic.

On March 15 last year Tarrant walked into Al Noor Mosque, heavily armed, shortly after Jumu’ah – the most significant prayer of the week – began.

42 people killed in six minutes
In little over six minutes he had killed 42 people.

About 10 minutes later he arrived at the Linwood Islamic Centre and, unable to find the entrance, began shooting from outside.

He killed seven people before he was chased from the mosque’s grounds by worshipper Abdul Aziz, who picked up and threw a bank card reader at the gunman, and used one of Tarrant’s own firearms as a spear which he threw through the terrorist’s car windscreen.

A 50th victim died soon after in Christchurch Hospital, while the 51st victim passed away 48 days after the attacks.

At this morning’s hearing only a small number of people were allowed into the courtroom due to the restrictions in place in New Zealand’s Covid-19 nationwide lockdown which began today.

Those entering the courthouse were screened by security and court staff wearing protective masks.

The imams from the two mosques, Gamal Fouda and Abdul Alabi Lateef, acted as the Muslim community’s representatives and watched as Tarrant entered his pleas.

Lived in obscurity
Tarrant lived in almost total obscurity in Dunedin for almost two years before Friday, 15 March 2019.

During that time he was part of an online fraternity of white supremacist, far-right extremists.

He had few connections in the city and was essentially a loner.

His family described how his hateful ideology appeared to form as he travelled the world following his father’s death from cancer in 2010.

Tarrant travelled to the Balkans, Turkey and Pakistan, among other locations linked to the Crusades and the Islamic world, before the attack.

The murderer lived in the quiet Dunedin suburb of Andersons Bay and acquired a firearms licence and a Subaru Legacy station wagon soon after relocating to the city in 2017.

The four A-class firearms, bought using that licence, and the vehicle would be used to carry out last year’s horrific attacks.

He practised shooting at the Bruce Rifle Club near Milton in South Otago, about 50 kilometres from Dunedin, for about a year in the lead-up to the attacks.

Tarrant identified Dunedin’s Al Huda Mosque as the initial target for his attack before turning his attention to the two mosques in Christchurch and the mosque in Ashburton, where he expressed his anger at its use of a former church.

Why the appearance happened at short notice
Police Commissioner Mike Bush said arrangements for Tarrant’s appearance in court had to be made at short notice after his lawyers only indicated on Tuesday afternoon that the gunman wanted to be brought before the court.

“Police appreciate this news will come as a surprise to the victims and the public, some of whom may have wished to be present in the courtroom,” Bush said.

“The two imams from the Al Noor and Lynwood Avenue mosques were present in the courtroom as representatives of the victims, as were representatives of the media.

“Suppression orders were put in place to allow police, victim court advisors and Victim Support to advise as many of the victims as possible prior to the news being made public.”

Sentencing would not take place until it was possible for all victims who wanted to attend to be present.

“Due to the Covid-19 epidemic that will not be possible for some time,” Bush said.

“Police, victims court advisers and Victim Support will be in touch with individual victims to update them on the sentencing process, including the process for providing victim impact statements and presenting those statements at the sentencing hearing if they wish to do so.

“While the sentencing hearing is still pending, today’s guilty pleas are a significant milestone in respect of one of our darkest days.

“I want to acknowledge the victims, their families and the community of Christchurch – the many lives that were changed forever. They have inspired all of us to be a kind and more tolerant community.”

Bush also paid homage to the officers, police staff and prosecutors involved in New Zealand’s largest ever criminal prosecution.

Police would comment further after sentencing.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

In the hours after the Christchurch mosque attacks on March 15 last year, I wrote that I hoped New Zealand would finally stop believing it was immune to far-right extremist violence. A year on, I’m not sure enough has changed.

I have researched far-right extremism for decades – and I would argue it remains a high-level threat in New Zealand, not just overseas.

My assessment is that there are about 60 to 70 groups and somewhere between 150 and 300 core right-wing activists in New Zealand.

READ MORE: Christchurch mosque shootings must end New Zealand’s innocence about right-wing terrorism

This sounds modest alongside the estimated 12,000 to 13,000 violent far-right activists in Germany. But proportionate to population size, the numbers are similar for both countries. And it only takes one activist to act out his extremism.

In the past year, there has certainly been greater investment by New Zealand’s security agencies in monitoring extremist groups and activists. There has been more media coverage.

The government moved quickly to ban assault weapons and further controls on the use and possession of arms are underway. Other initiatives, including a royal commission of inquiry, are pending.

But I also feel there is a tendency to see the Christchurch attacks, which killed 51 people, as a one-off or an aberration – rather than something we still need to guard against.

NZ’s home-grown extremists
New Zealanders should now be more aware than a year ago of the presence of local right-wing extremists. There has been plenty to remind them.

In June last year, Philip Arps, who has been involved in white supremacist activities in Christchurch for some time, was sentenced to 21 months in jail for sharing video of the Christchurch shootings.

I am puzzled by the limited public awareness that the imagery on the side of his van – a reference to 14/88 and Nazi signage – was a clear indicator of his extremist views.

Arps was released early in January this year under strict conditions, including a GPS monitor that alerts authorities if he goes near a mosque.

Even though the white nationalist group Dominion Movement folded after the mosque attacks, one of its leaders, a soldier in the NZ Defence Force, was arrested in December last year for “accessing a computer for a dishonest purpose” and disclosing information that “prejudiced the security and defence of New Zealand”.

He had been active since 2011 on the neo-Nazi site Stormfront and attended a free speech rally in Wellington in 2018 along with another extreme-right activist.

He also appears to be a member of Wargus Christi, a group formed in September last year by a self-described neo-Nazi, Daniel Waring. It is a “martial-monastic” group of body builders who are homophobic, anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic.

Another group new to New Zealand’s extreme right is Action Zealandia. Their slogan is “building a community for European New Zealanders”. Apart from their online presence, their main public activity is placing stickers in public spaces highlighting their ultra-nationalism.

Confronting NZ’s place in a global web of hate
Information from agencies such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League in the US shows a significant increase in extremist activity since 2016.

What has been most concerning is that the rise in online hate speech has real-world implications. Research shows an increase in online hate speech will be accompanied by hate crimes in a region or locality. Internet outages reduce both.

In the aftermath of the Christchurch attacks, it was good to see rapid action on limiting automatic weapons. And the Christchurch Call – Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s initiative to stop people using social media to promote terrorism – certainly helped put pressure on online platforms such as Facebook to monitor and remove objectionable material.

But we could move to ban right-wing organisations and put restrictions on individuals who breach agreed thresholds of speech and action. We still do not have clear guidelines for what constitutes hate speech, apart from s61 of the Human Rights Act and the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

I do worry that we don’t have sufficient resources and skills locally to adequately monitor what is happening, even if agencies have been working together more closely internationally.

It would be good to know more from the agencies that have oversight. The New Zealand Security and Intelligence Service (NZSIS) refers to the threat value, but often in relation to international threats.

More openness about their concerns and the extent of local groups and activists would help: for instance, something like Tell MAMA in the UK or the reports other security agencies provide.

Public assessment refreshing
It was refreshing to see the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) provide its annual threat assessment in February this year. It assessed the terrorist threat in Australia as probable but the possibility of a right-wing extremist attack as low in terms of capability.

But it acknowledged that advances in technology are “outstripping our technical capabilities”, which must be a concern everywhere.

One thing is certain. The Christchurch mosque attacks have become part of the lexicon whenever white supremacist terrorism is discussed. The events on March 15 have become something of a guide – and, unfortunately, an inspiration to other right-wing terrorists.

It is challenging that many of these extremists, the alleged Christchurch gunman included, are self-radicalised, ideologically motivated, and with a small or no digital footprint. Often there is no prior warning of an attack.

One year on from the attacks, my report card for New Zealand is that we have made progress on greater awareness and action. But we still need to do more, including on keeping the public better informed that the problem has not gone away. Just ask those who continue to be targeted.

Dr Paul Spoonley is distinguished professor in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Jacinda Ardern has paid tribute to the three Fijians who died in last year’s Christchurch mosque shootings.

Ardern spoke today at Lautoka Mosque as part of her trip to Fiji to remember Imam Hafiz Musa Patel, Ashraf Ali Razak and Ashraf Ali, who died almost a year ago.

She also thanked the Fijian community for their response in the aftermath.

READ MORE: A year from the Christchurch terror attacks, NZ intelligence records a surge in reports

“I want to place on record our deep appreciation for the many messages of support and sympathy we received from Fiji following the March 15 attacks, it gave us strength to know that you stood in solidarity with us,” she said.

“But it was especially moving to receive those messages when you faced your own grief.”

She said she still recalls visiting the hall the day after the attack where hundreds of members of the Muslim community were gathered.

“Amongst them was the wife of one of your fallen, I still remember talking with her as she desperately looked for her husband and feeling pained to leave her with the Red Cross.

‘Darkest of hours’
“In your darkest of hours I can tell you I will never forget your grief,” she said.

She said she has been so moved by the generosity of the muslim faith.

The prime minister has also put out a call to find “Heather from Papanui” – a woman who helped the wife of Imam Patel the morning after the attack.

“She drove Mrs Patel around Christchurch helping to find her husband with her… Mrs Patel would like to find Heather from Papanui.”

Ardern told her “being New Zealand, being the community we are, I’m sure that we can find her and pass on her deep gratitude”.

“She tells me that she just asked Heather to drive her around Christchurch until she found a crowd of people because she thought that she would find information amongst that crowd – and that is where I found Mrs Patel”.

And the message to Heather from Papanui: “Thank you for embodying the New Zealand generosity and kindness we saw in the moments after that attack and I hope we can reunite you with Mrs Patel.”

Emotion still raw
It had only been a year since the shootings so the emotion was still raw, Ardern said, but it was a chance for her to meet at least one of the family members she had met in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.

The grandson of Ashraf Ali Razak, Mohammed Iftikar Ali said it was fate because his grandfather was not supposed to be in Christchurch that day, but he made a stop over on his way to Australia to visit a sick relative.

He appreciated the prime minister’s visit and said it was comforting.

“She was so warm in how she was explaining how sorry she was, it is none of our fault, but it was fate to be done and we are really thankful for her to be here,” he said.

“We really miss who we lost, he can’t be replaced.”

The niece, Saliman Bibi said Ardern told them she was sorry for their loss.

‘Lost with words’
“I was just lost with words I couldn’t say anything, I just felt great she is here, she is with us in our soul,” she said.

Ardern also spoke of the commitment to ensure these attacks never happen again.

She then spoke about the moves the government had taken to address weaknesses in gun legislation and to tackle extremist content online.

However, she added it is not just politicians or those in positions of power who can honour those who have died.

“Immediately after the attacks, Prime Minister Bainimarama called on all Fijians across all backgrounds and faiths to join him in making a pledge: whereever you encounter someone who says something racist and hateful, whether it is online or in person, say something.

He said, “Be the voice of love. Be the voice of change.”

Today marked the last day of the prime minister’s trip to Fiji, this evening she will be leaving for Australia where she will be meeting with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Friday.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

• Other reports on PM Jacinda Ardern’s visit to Fiji

The latest chapter in the court proceedings of the accused mosque gunman played out in cold, misty weather in Christchurch today.

Reporters and camera crews from around the world lined Lichfield Street from 6.30am, with all eyes and lenses on the High Court, situated on the Justice Precinct’s fourth floor.

Today was the third appearance of Brenton Tarrant, who today pleaded not guilty to all 92 charges against him, including murder, attempted murder and one terrorism charge.

READ MORE: Accused gunman appearing in court

As his 9.15am court appearance approached, so too did a steady trickle of people from the Muslim community – some arriving alone and others in clusters, clasping each other’s hands.

Some bore physical wounds visible in limps and crutches, while others displayed their emotional wounds in shirts printed with the names of their deceased loved ones.

Anneke Smith was at court in Christchurch today and filed this report. Video: RNZ News

Shutters clicked as the gunman’s lawyers, Shane Tait and Jonathan Hudson, dragged suitcases of court documents through entrance A1.

At 9.56am, texts came through that the hearing was over and that he had entered not guilty pleas to all charges.

Frustration and pain
Then came expressions of frustration and pain from the Muslim community, some of whom had just seen their first glimpse of the man, albeit via video-link.

Didar Hossain, who lost his uncle in the attacks, concluded today had been a “difficult day”.

“I was totally heartbroken,” he said of hearing the not guilty pleas.

Pain turned to anger during a brief scuffle, when a man shouting race-related comments approached shooting survivor Mustafa Boztas and mosque “hero” Abdul Aziz.

The man was swiftly apprehended by Corrections staff and police officers, leaving shocked bystanders in his wake.

But Temal Atacocugu, who was shot nine times in the March 15 attacks, fronted media with a message of strength and solidarity.

“He is the loser and we are the winner,” he said.

“We are innocent people but we are strong. We are New Zealand and we are strong.”

Lichfield Street is expected to play host to the crowds again in August, when the accused will appear for a case review hearing.

His trial is due to start on May 4 next year.

• This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.
• Mosque massacre stories

New Zealand police have laid a terrorism charge against the man accused of murdering 51 people in Christchurch in deadly terror attacks on two Christchurch mosques on March 15.

In addition to the murder charges, Brenton Tarrant faces 40 of attempted murder and one charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

In a statement, police said they had updated the victims’ families and survivors of the Christchurch attacks.

READ MORE: The Christchurch mosque attacks

“A charge of engaging in a Terrorist Act under section 6A of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 has now been filed against Brenton Tarrant,” they said.

“The charge will allege that a terrorist act was carried out in Christchurch on 15 March 2019 and follows consultation between Police, Crown Law and the Christchurch Crown Solicitors Office.”

Police also filed an additional murder charge and two additional attempted murder charges.

Fifty-one charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act have now been filed against Tarrant.

• This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.
• Prosecution of mosque gunman would be first under Suppression of Terrorism Act

National Party MPs crossed the floor of New Zealand’s Parliament to congratulate Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and Police Minister Stuart Nash, after MPs voted near-unanimously to approve the government’s gun ban last night.

Senior police officers and members of Nash’s staff were among the few people in the public gallery to witness the vote on the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill, which outlaws military-style semi-automatics, magazines and parts that can be used to assemble prohibited firearms.

The bill, prompted by the massacre of 50 people in two Christchurch mosques on March 15 using semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, was passed by 119 votes to one, just over a week after it was introduced.

LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT

The legislation is expected to be approved by the Governor-General today.

The prime minister began the debate over the final reading of the bill by telling MPs their vote would make the country safer.

She told them that by voting near-unanimously in favour of the bill they were doing the right thing for the victims of the March 15 massacre.

“We are ultimately here because 50 people died and they do not have a voice. We in this house are their voice and today Mr Speaker we have used that voice wisely,” Ardern said.

Balancing rights
Labour Party MP Michael Wood chaired the select committee that considered the Arms Amendment Bill.

He acknowledged the gun owners who would be affected by the change in law but told Parliament it had to balance the competing rights of citizens.

“Every time we legislate in this house, we balance the rights of different citizens and different groups within our communities and on this occasion we say that the right of all New Zealanders to live peacefully and free from the terror that inflicted our country on the 15th of March is a more important right than the right to own these weapons.”

Police Minister Stuart Nash told RNZ Morning Report the law change was game-changing.

“New Zealand will be a safer place once this is implemented and once we get these guns out of our communities,” Nash said.

He said it wasn’t going to happen overnight, but that this was a start.

Those who own illegal firearms were given an amnesty until September 30 to hand over the weapons to police.

Illegal guns
Nash said if anyone is found to be in possession of one of the illegal firearms after that date they could face up to five years in jail.

“I like to think the vast majority of Kiwis are good law-abiding citizens and both the prime minister and myself have made this very clear that we’re not penalising these gun owners, but we have changed the law and as a consequence of that they are now holding something which is illegal.”

Nash said there are a number of ways to check that illegal firearms were being handed in, including checking gun dealers’ records.

“Gun dealers have to hold five years worth of data. We can take a look at their records and we can determine where guns have been sold, who they’ve been sold to and we can follow through on that.”

He said they all military-style semi-automatic weapon had to be registered and he can go through those to make sure they’re all handed in.

Last night several MPs noted that Parliament had failed to pass tougher gun laws in the past.

Mark Patterson from New Zealand First said police and others had repeatedly tried to restrict semi-automatic rifles before and previous parliaments had failed to agree to gun law changes.

‘Too timid’
“This is not the time to point fingers but certainly for anyone who questions the process, how much process do you need? We have been too timid, we have paid the price,” Mr Patterson said.

National MP Andrew Bailey said the bill was a moment for Parliament to act in unity and he hoped it would send the right message to the families of the 50 victims.

“To the families of our missing 50 and those who were injured, I trust you will look at us as an institution and say we delivered here today.”

Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman said Parliament must pass the bill because communities directly affected by the attacks such as Christchurch people and Muslim and refugee groups were afraid of further violence.

“We live not only with ongoing grief but also with very real fear,” she said.

“As we walk our kids to school, as we catch a bus late at night, as we gather in our community hubs, we now live with the fear of mass violence and this house recognises that and the job of making New Zealand safe.”

‘Marker in sand’
Judith Collins from the National Party said she was proud of Parliament and the legislation would have a lasting effect on New Zealand society.

“This is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will pass this Parliament because it’s not only about keeping people safe, it’s about putting a marker in the sand for our New Zealand culture.”

The only dissenting voice was ACT’s David Seymour who said rushing the bill through Parliament was political theatre.

“I am in support of changing our gun laws, but it is impossible for anyone of good conscience to support this bill, the way it’s been brought about and the problems with it that will make our society more dangerous than we had on 15 March,” he said.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

• Other mosque attack reports

The man charged over the Christchurch mosque shootings last month appeared in the High Court in Christchurch today, accused of killing 50 people.

Brenton Tarrant, 28, appeared via a video link from Auckland Prison for what was a quiet, ordered hearing.

The public gallery was packed to standing capacity with members of the Muslim community and journalists from New Zealand and around the world.

READ MORE: Mosque victim’s brother: ‘I didn’t see any emotion on his face’

Armed police were outside as survivors and relatives of victims of the attack arrived at court.

Women in hijabs hugged one another as they arrived at the courtroom. Senior police officers, including Detective Inspectors Dave Lynch and Greg Murton, were seated in the front row of the public gallery.

The defendant was able to see the judge and lawyers and hear the proceeding but the camera was turned away from the public gallery.

His manner was calm thoughout the hearing as he intently listened to the proceedings; his screen was muted.

Single charge
It is the defendant’s second court appearance, after briefly appearing in Christchurch District Court on March 16, the day after the mosque attacks. At that hearing police had laid a single charge of murder.

He now faces 50 charges of murder and 39 of attempted murder.

Justice Cameron Mander formally recorded that a further 49 charges of murder and 39 of attempted murder had been filed by the Crown.

He noted the initial murder charge, which named a woman who was in fact alive, was to be amended and suppressed that woman’s name.

The judge also suppressed the names of the attempted murder victims.

Two Auckland lawyers, Shane Tait and Jonathan Hudson, were to represent the accused. Tait issued a brief statement last night saying the right to consult and instruct a lawyer, and the right to a fair and public hearing, were protected rights in New Zealand law.

Justice Mander ordered that two mental health reports be completed to assess the defendant’s fitness to plead. He remanded him in custody without plea to next appear on June 14.

Victim families briefed
The families of the victims of the mosque attack were briefed about the court appearance by court officials and victims’ advisors.

Media had the right to be present and report on the hearing – other than any discussions held in chambers, as is usual court procedure – but the judge had declined applications from New Zealand and overseas media to film, take photos and record sound.

The starting principle on such applications is open justice, but it is up to the judge to decide whether it is appropriate and in this case Justice Mander found it was not.

In a minute issued to media, he said he had taken into account a number of factors in reaching his decision, including the need to preserve the integrity of the trial, the role of the media, and the court’s obligations to the victims of the massacre.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

• Thousands don’t believe official Christchurch terror attacks story
• More Christchurch terror attack reports

Thousands of New Zealanders do not believe the official version of the mosque terror attacks in Christchurch.

About 5 percent of the people are estimated to be hard core conspiracy theorists, some of whom have been spreading their theories online and over the airwaves, reaching a global audience, according to Victoria University professor of psychology Marc Wilson.

Professor Wilson, who has studied conspiracy theories, said it was no surprise that New Zealanders had been looking for alternative explanations for the Christchurch attacks.

READ MORE: Accused to face 50 murder charges, police confirm

Some New Zealand conspiracy theorists have been talking to American radio show host Alex Jones, who is well known for promoting various conspiracy theories.

For years he has argued the Sandy Hook school shooting in the United States was staged by actors to undermine gun ownership rights.

Families of the 20 children killed are suing him for defamation, and this week, in a court deposition, he finally conceded the attack was real and children died.

One of the people to talk to Jones was Sharee, a North Island woman who said there was a link between the recent measles outbreak in Christchurch and the terror attack.

No animosity
Sharee went on to say the attack didn’t make sense, because there was no animosity towards New Zealand’s Muslim community.

Another woman, Mandy, called American right-wing talk show Newswars.

She said the United Nations orchestrated the attack, and she was disgusted by the government’s response.

Thousands of other New Zealanders are active on Facebook and other social media sites, discussing different theories for what happened in Christchurch.

Professor Wilson said up to 5 percent of people were prototypical conspiracy theorists, while many more believed in some conspiracy theories.

“I’ve done some large scale surveying of thousands and thousands of New Zealanders,” Professor Wilson said.

“What I’ve found is that something like 30 percent of New Zealanders argue that, for example, the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was not conducted by agents of a foreign power.

‘Established fact’
“I find it kind of interesting, because I’m pretty sure it was the French actually. I mean, that’s a fairly well established fact.

“About a third of New Zealanders indicate that they think the All Blacks were poisoned before the 1995 World Cup final.”

Professor Wilson said the internet had fostered a dramatic increase in the number of conspiracy theories.

The flash point was 9/11, and now there are millions of people browsing websites which only strengthen their beliefs.

He cited confirmation bias, in which people surround themselves with online communities who shared the same views, and reinforced their beliefs.

Professor Wilson said conspiracy theorists seized upon any opportunity to question the official narrative, like the fact police charged the alleged gunman with killing someone who was still alive.

“Finding that police have identified someone as dead, who actually isn’t dead, then becomes the kind of information that someone who already has a predisposition to distrust the official point of view, then confirms that belief.”

‘Fake news’ phenomenon
Professor Wilson said one of the most mainstream conspiracies was the fake news phenomenon, which was spread most famously by supporters of United States President Donald Trump.

The president has also appeared on programmes like Jones’ Infowars.

Professor Wilson said it was a relief New Zealand politicians had not gone down the American route, but it was something he watched closely.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

• NZ mosque attacks suspect to face 50 murder charges – Al Jazeera
• Gun law reform – heated debate in parliamentary select committee

I visited the city of Christchurch on May 23, 2018, as part of a larger speaking tour in New Zealand that also took me to Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton and Dunedin.

New Zealand is an exceptional country, different from other countries that are often lumped under the generalised designation of the “Western world”. Almost immediately after my arrival in Auckland, New Zealand’s largest and most populous city, I was struck by the overt friendliness, hospitality and diversity.

This is not to downgrade the ongoing struggles in the country, lead among them being the campaign for land rights as championed by the Māori people, the original inhabitants of New Zealand; but, indeed, there was something refreshingly different about New Zealanders.

READ MORE: Ramzy Baroud’s articles at Counterpunch

Just the fact that the Māori language, “Te Reo”, is one of the three official languages in the country, the others being English and Sign Language, immediately sets New Zealand apart from other colonised spaces, where indigenous peoples, cultures, languages and rights are, to various extents, inconsequential.

It is due to the empowered position of the indigenous Māori culture, that New Zealand is, compared to other countries, more inclusive and more accepting of refugees and immigrants. And that is likely why New Zealand – and Christchurch, in particular – was chosen as a target for the terrorist attacks carried out by an Australian national on March 15.

The Australian terrorist – whose name will not be mentioned here in honour of a call made by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, as not to celebrate the infamy of the senseless murderer – wanted to send a message that immigrants, particularly Muslims, are not safe, not even in New Zealand.

But his attempt backfired. Not only will he live “the rest of his life in isolation in prison”, as promised by New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, who was speaking at the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) emergency conference in Turkey on March 22, but the horrific crime has brought New Zealanders even closer together.

Sorrowful, yet beautiful
There is something sorrowful, yet beautiful, about Christchurch. This small, welcoming city, located on the east coast of New Zealand’s South Island, was devastated on February 22, 2011, by a massive earthquake that killed 185 people and destroyed much of the town.

Last May, I spoke at Christchurch’s Cardboard Cathedral, an innovative structure that was built as a temporary replacement to the Anglican Cathedral that was destroyed in the earthquake.

In my talk, I commended the people for their beautiful church, and for their own resilience in the face of hardship. The diversity, openness and solidarity of the audience reflected the larger reality throughout the city, in fact, throughout the country.

For me, Christchurch was not a place of tragedy, but a source of hope.

My audience, which also included members of the Muslim community, some coming from Al Noor Mosque – the main target of the recent attack – listened and engaged me as I argued that the genuine authentic voices of ordinary people should be placed at the core of our understanding of the past, and our hope for a better future.

While the focus of my talk was the history of the Palestinian people, the message exceeded the struggle for freedom in Palestine into the struggle and rights of all indigenous groups, guided by such uplifting experiences as that of the Māori people of New Zealand itself.

Unconditional solidarity
I also had the chance to meet with Marama Davidson, co-leader of the Green Party, among other MPs. It was strange to be in a position where solidarity from politicians came across as genuine as that of the unconditional solidarity of ordinary activists – once again, highlighting the uniqueness of New Zealand’s progressive politics and leadership.

Experiencing that myself, it was no surprise to see the outpouring of genuine love and support by Prime Minister Ardern and many members of her cabinet and parliament following the mosque attack. The fact that she, along with numerous women throughout the country, wore symbolic head-scarves in order to send a message to Muslims that they are not alone, while countless thousands of New Zealanders mourned the victims who perished in Al Noor and Linwood mosques, was unprecedented in the recent history of Western-Muslim relationship.

In fact, on Friday, March 22, when all of New Zealand’s TV and radio stations transmitted the call for Muslim prayer, and as Muslims and non-Muslims rallied together in a massive display of human solidarity while mourning their dead, for a moment, all Muslims became New Zealanders and all New Zealanders became Muslims.

At the end of my talk, a group of Muslims from the mosque approached me with a gift, a box of dates to break my fast, as it was the month of Ramadan, the holy month of fasting and repentance for Muslims worldwide. With much gratitude, I took the box of dates and promised to visit Al Noor when I return to the country in the future.

A few months later, as I watched the horrific images on television of the terrorist attack that struck this peaceful city, I immediately thought of the Cardboard Cathedral, of the beautiful solidarity of the Māori, of the numerous embraces of so many New Zealanders, and, of the kindly Muslims and the box of dates.

Peaceful co-existence
I also understood why the undeserving-to-be named terrorist chose to strike Christchurch, and the underlying message he wanted to send to Muslims, immigrants, New Zealanders and all of those who champion peaceful co-existence and tolerance worldwide.

But he failed. In fact, all other foot soldiers of racism and hate will continue to fail because tragedy often unites us. Collective pain helps us see each other as human beings first, where our differences, however great, can never be enough to justify or even explain why 3-year-old Mucad Ibrahim had to die, along with 49 other, beautiful and innocent people.

However, one can be comforted by the Māori saying, “Ka mate te kāinga tahi, ka ora te kāinga rua” – “when one house dies, the second lives”. It means that good things can always emerge from misfortune.

It will take much time for Christchurch, and the whole of New Zealand, to heal from this terrible misfortune. But the strength, will and courage of so many communities should be enough to turn a horrific terrorist act into an opportunity to heal our collective wounds, not just in New Zealand, but the world over.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London). He has a PhD in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter (2015) and was a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. This article is republished with the permission of the author.

• More Christchurch mosque terror tragedy reports
• Earlier Ramzy Baroud articles

COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose of RNZ Mediawatch

The speech by Imam Gamal Fouda of Al Noor mosque delivered just a week after the Christchurch massacre was a remarkable celebration of love, compassion and unity.

“This terrorist chose to tear our nation apart with an evil ideology which has torn the world apart. But instead we have shown that New Zealand is unbreakable and that the world can see in us an example of love and unity. We are broken-hearted but we are not broken.”

But Imam Fouda didn’t shy away from criticising those he believes helped pave the way to the massacre of 15 March 2019.

“The martyrdom of 50 innocent people and the injury of 42 last Friday did not come overnight – it was the result of the anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim rhetoric by some political leaders, some media agencies and others.”

LISTEN TO RNZ MEDIAWATCH

Freelance journalist Saziah Bashir is among those who have joined Imam Fouda in his criticism of the media.

“Muslims have been dehumanised and demonised in the media the world ever since 9/11. The failure to include Muslim voices in this narrative has left unchallenged the stereotypes painted of us, as if we are a two-dimensional monolith, a single monstrous Other,” said Bashir, writing on RNZ’s website four days after the massacre.

And there’s plenty of hard evidence of skewed media reporting both here and overseas.

An article in The Guardian last week cited 2007 research that found 91 percent of stories about Muslims appearing in a single week were negative. A 2011 study carried out over three months put the figure at 70 percent.

Australia’s Muslim One Path Network carried out research last year with similar results. It examined the 2017 coverage of Islam in five Australian newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and found “almost 3000 articles that referred to Islam or Muslims alongside words like violence, extremism, terrorism or radical”.

“We also found 152 front pages over the year that featured Islam in some negative capacity. A lot of the time, these articles and exclusives were the featured item, the most important story for selling the newspaper.”

Support for that negative coverage goes right to the top. Rupert Murdoch – who has an ownership stake in vast swathes of the world’s media including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News – in 2015 tweeted:

The situation in New Zealand
In 2017 the New Zealand media featured 14,349 stories that included the word Islam – nearly 13,000 of those stories mentioned either terrorism or Islamic Jihad.

The statistics are from an academic article in Pacific Journalism Review, Representations of Islam and Muslims in New Zealand Media, by Khairiah Rahman and Azadeh Emadi.

The paper concluded:

“There appears to be a growing misconceived hatred for a faith supported by 1.5 billion of the world’s population, but more importantly, this destructive trend is promoted by the media, consciously or not, and has the potential to ultimately cause an unnecessary and irreparable rift in civil society.”

Rahman – a senior lecturer in communication studies and Pacific Media Centre advisory board member at Auckland University of Technology – told Mediawatch that in 2017 for every New Zealand-produced story that mentioned Islam, there were seven that mentioned Islamic terrorism. And the ratio in overseas newswire stories was even higher.

“We found that stories tend to be more fair and balanced when Muslim voices are represented. And they tend to be negative or confused in their treatment of Muslims and Islam when the Muslim voice is absent or manipulated,” said Rahman.

She said virtually all of the stories mentioning terrorism or jihad lacked a Muslim perspective.

But things have changed dramatically since the tragic events of March 15.

“In the last week… the New Zealand media did actually make a difference. I think they’re leading the way. It’s not just about Muslims or Islam or Islamophobia, but it’s about representation of diversity and the different voices in societies where there is predominantly one sort of culture,” she said.

Former RNZ journalist Mohamed Hassan agrees.

“The coverage has been incredibly sympathetic. I think a lot of the media has done really well and has been really generous in opening up those spaces and giving those spaces to Muslim voices…. myself included,” he told Mediawatch.

Hassan, who now works for Turkish public broadcaster TRT World, said it had taken the media “a very long time to figure out how to talk about terrorism when those involved in it are of a Muslim background.”

He said there were a lot of media outlets that completely ignored Muslim voices.

“Every time you have a terrorist attack, as a media organisation you have a panel of five experts talking about Islam, none of whom are Muslim, none of whom come from those communities. So everything they say, there’s no rebuttal to,” he said.

“This week has been a really great case study of how to deal with issues that involved the Muslim community.

“Now that there are these Muslim who have been presented and have had their say – all of them are very eloquent, all of them are amazing representatives for their community, and they’re trusted… (it’s important) these voices are not forgotten when the time comes and there’s an issue that involves the Muslim community.”

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

• ‘Broken-hearted but not broken’: Al Noor imam’s Christchurch speech in full
• Mohamed Hassan’s Public Enemy podcast deals with realities of living as a Muslim in the post-9/11 world.

By Amy Williams and of Brooke Jenner of RNZ News

All Black Sonny Bill Williams has challenged hundreds of people at Auckland’s memorial service for those who died in the Christchurch mosque attack two weeks ago to reach out to Muslims in their community.

The people gathered at the Eden Park rugby stadium for the city’s service this afternoon.

Among them, hundreds of Muslims from across the city huddled into a prayer room at Eden Park to pray and reflect on the atrocity and the aftermath.

READ MORE: NZ stands together – ‘evil must not take root’

The Auckland service began with a call to prayer shortly after 1.30pm. In a sermon, Sheikh Muhamed Shaakir Ismail said terrorism had no race and creed and he called on New Zealanders of all different cultures to get to know each other better.

“We need to learn about each other from each other, not from the media and what people may think,” he said.

“Our mosques, synagogues, churches maraes and religious centres should be funded so that people can come in and learn more about the religion and the people.”

Following prayers, they joined the crowd gathered in Eden Park’s south stand.

Mayor speaks of forgiveness
Mayor Phil Goff told the crowd the forgiveness shown by Farid Ahmed, a victim of the mosque attack who spoke in Christchurch this morning, took his breath away.

He said people had gathered to reaffirm their commitment to multi-faith and multi-cultural society.

People came from all over Auckland to stand together with the Muslim community, wearing colourful headscarves and green ribbons on their wrists in a show of solidarity.

After prayers, a group of over 50 children from Kingsland’s Kowhai Intermediate started the remembrance service with a waiata.

All Black Sonny Bill Williams said while he was saddened by how little people had known about Islam before the tragedy. However, he was heartened by the compassion and empathy that had been shown since.

“We cannot and will not allow such acts to deter us from loving one another,” he said. “And just like in the last couple of weeks, New Zealanders, I want to say let’s keep leading the way.”

“Let’s keep being that light in stormy waters for the rest of the world to see how it’s done.”

National Muslim Association president Ikhlaq Kashkari asked people to continue to show the love and kindness expressed over the past two weeks in the coming months.

New Zealand music icon Dave Dobbyn closed the service with his anthem, “Welcome Home”, leaving Auckland with its heart wide open.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

In 2017, the New Zealand media featured 14,349 stories that included the word Islam – nearly 13,000 of those stories mentioned either terrorism or Islamic Jihad.

The stats are from an academic article in Pacific Journalism Review by Auckland University of Technology’s senior lecturer and Pacific Media Centre board member Khairiah Rahman and Azadeh Emadi of Glasgow University:

READ MORE: Representation of Islam and Muslims in New Zealand media

LISTEN TO MEDIAWATCH

The pair wrote that the paper was necessary because:

“there appears to be a growing misconceived hatred for a faith supported by 1.5 billion of the world’s population, but more importantly, this destructive trend is promoted by the media, consciously or not, and has the potential to ultimately cause an unnecessary and irreparable rift in civil society.”

And they wrote:

“The media can rectify their misrepresentations of Muslims by adopting intercultural dialogue. The outcome would present a holistic story that uses the voices of those involved respectfully.”

In the days since the mass murder at the mosques in Christchurch Muslim voices are finally being heard. It’s beyond tragic that it’s taken an act of such murderous evil to bring that about.

Unsurprising to Muslims
If there’s been a unifying theme among many of the op-eds published in recent days it’s that as shocking as the white supremacist attack was – it wasn’t surprising to Muslims.

Waleed Aly, a co-host of the Australian version of The Project, began last Friday’s programme with an editorial. He said:

“Of all the things I could say tonight, that I’m gutted and I’m scared and I feel overcome with utter hopelessness, the most dishonest thing, the most dishonest thing would be to say that I’m shocked. I’m simply not. There’s nothing about what happened in Christchurch today that shocked me. I wasn’t shocked when six people were shot to death at a mosque in Quebec City two years ago. I wasn’t shocked when a man drove a van into Finsbury Park mosque in London about six months later and I wasn’t shocked when 11 Jews were shot dead in a Pittsburgh synagogue late last year or when nine Christians were killed at a church in Charleston. If we’re honest, we’ll know this has been coming.”

The video has been shared 12 million times and seen Prime Minister Scott Morrison threaten Network 10 with a defamation case.

Writing on the Vice website lawyer and chairperson of the Khadija Leadership Network Pakeeza Rasheed wrote:

“I am sad that this happened but I am equally angry that little had been done to address the issues leading up to this event. As Muslims we have been told our anger is dangerous, our anger is unacceptable. … For so long we have been told to be quiet, to be invisible, to know our place and apologise for our very existence. To be grateful that we were allowed to be a part of a utopian paradise. But let’s not fool ourselves. We have never really been a part of New Zealand. We have merely been allowed to exist—never embraced, never included, never accepted. Muslims have been in New Zealand since the 1800s but we are still treated as outsiders.”

‘We ignored it’
Donna Miles-Mohab writing on Newsroom said:

“Islamophobia: you cannot tackle it if you don’t acknowledge it exists. Let’s face it; we ignored it. We chose to look away. We chose to refuse to acknowledge that Islamophobia is a problem in New Zealand. It’s a hard pill to swallow, I know – especially now that most of us feel so devastated by the news and feel so shocked that such an evil act can happen in a country full of love and tolerance. But to many Muslims, especially hijabi Muslim women, the hate that gave rise to this evil act is not entirely unfamiliar.”

And she noted: “An informal survey of 100 young Muslim women conducted by the Islamic Women Council of New Zealand (IWCNZ) showed 80 percent were harassed or discriminated within the previous year.”

On RNZ’s website Saziah Bashir wrote:

“Muslims have been dehumanised and demonised in the media the world over since 9/11. The failure to include Muslim voices in this narrative has left unchallenged the stereotypes painted of us, as if we are a two-dimensional monolith, a single monstrous Other.”

And she had some suggestions…

“Share on social media the commentary from Muslims who are sharing their thoughts and experiences and if you are white then share the immense platform you are often privileged to occupy.”

Plenty of sharing
There’s been plenty of sharing going on. The Manukau Police posted a video on Facebook of Inspector Naila Hassan – New Zealand’s highest ranked Muslim police officer – addressing a vigil marking the tragedy.

In a profile of Inspector Hassan published by Stuff last year, she revealed that it had taken her 20 years to admit to her colleagues she was Muslim – clearly it’s not just the media that at times has felt less than welcoming to Muslim views.

Green MP Chloe Swarbrick used her Facebook page to let her friend Mukseet to tell his story. The post has been shared 10,000 times.

Mukseet writes candidly about growing up in a racist country and then shares this anecdote: .

“I watched my mum bursting with pride as she recounted to my aunty in Bangladesh the story of how she went for a walk this morning, and a white woman came up to her, greeted her as a friend, took her hands and said ‘I’m so sorry for your loss’.”

He continued: “Your messages mean a lot. Your support means a lot. They have brought me to tears, helped to keep me grounded, and brought me back from some really dark places. But if I’m to be honest; they’re not enough. Action is so much harder than apathy. But look where apathy and complacency got us.

“In these times when hate and bigotry no longer have to hide in the shadows; listen to minorities, talk to those around you, if you hear someone spouting hate, call that shit out.”

Earthquake shelter
Dr Anwar Ghani of the Federation of Islamic Societies was asked on TVNZ’s Marae on Sunday about that lack of surprise at the attacks but he had other things he wanted to say first:

“This particular mosque at Deans Avenue was a place for shelter when we had the earthquakes and they used to serve meal to three to four hundred people every day. And the community made a point of going the provide at least whatever they could. That was their sense of doing community good.”

And then Dr Ghani answered the question about why the attack hadn’t come as a complete surprise to Muslims.

“While we are not surprised but we are certainly shocked that it could happen at this level, this magnitude. We are lost for words. We also know that New Zealand stands together. We have seen at the vigil in Hamilton – such a small community but six seven thousand people came and showed solidarity.”.

One of the biggest challenges coming up for the media is how to deal with the upcoming trial of the man responsible this crime. Anjum Rahman, of the Islamic Woman’s Council, was asked on TVNZ’s Q and A programme about the accused mass murderer’s plan to represent himself in court.

She replied that he would represent himself and like all New Zealanders he had that right but the media had a responsibility not to report everything just for the sake of it. “I would be asking all media to show extreme restraint in terms of which of his messages they choose to put out to the public. Don’t let him play the game.”

If Anjum Rahman was looking forward to the media reporting responsibility, the Spinoff’s Duncan Grieve was looking at how the media was handling some of its less edifying efforts from the past. In an article titled: ‘The quiet deletion of the Islamophobic archives,’ Grieves pointed out that a photo Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking holding up a tee-shirt with the Okay symbol that is popular with white supremacists had been removed (Hosking has said he was unaware of the symbol’s associations with the alt-right); and that an article by fellow ZB host Chris Lynch that asked “Does Islam have any place in public swimming pools?” had also been removed.

On-air apology
Mediawatch hasn’t read the the scrubbed op-ed but presumably it objected to women only hours – often popular with non Muslim women as well – on the grounds it was buckling to Islamic demands.

Lynch made an on-air apology.

Newsroom’s Thomas Coughlan took a look at the recent history of politicians criticising Islam and Muslim immigration to New Zealand. (He spoke to Bryan Crump about it on Monday night on Lately.)

He pointed our current foreign and deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters is a repeat offender. Peters is quoted as saying: “They say – ah yes – but New Zealand has always been a nation of immigrants. They miss a crucial point. New Zealand has never been a nation of Islamic immigrants…” .

Coughlan’s list was far from comprehensive. In 2002 Richard Prebble – then the leader of the ACT Party – warned of the dangers of people from desert cultures and advocated taking in white farmers from Southern Africa instead – who he described as real refugees.

The comments barely rated a mention with Scoop and Australia’s Green Left Weekly being the only places online with articles mentioning the press release.

Didn’t rate a mention
And in his self-published 2014 autobiography Don Brash dedicated a whole chapter to the question fundamentalist religion.

Most of the chapter is made of an article that Brash wrote while he was the leader of the National Party but was never published because his colleagues at the time warned him that it would confirm people’s impression that he was a racist.

In it he quotes approvingly from a paper by a former Australian Treasury secretary – “not some kind of extreme right-wing nutter,” according to Brash – which advocated bringing Muslim immigration to a virtual halt because, he claimed, Islam was a culture that “for the past 500 years or so failed its adherents as its inward-looking theocracy has resulted in it falling further and further behind the West”.

Brash’s book was the subject of quite a few interviews but as far as Mediawatch is aware his support for massively restricting Muslim immigration didn’t rate a mention.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

It has now been almost two weeks since 50 people – Muslim worshippers – were killed in New Zealand’s largest South Island city, Christchurch.

The gunman live-streamed his killing-spree on Facebook, and the video – all 17 minutes of it – spread from there.

There’s a depressing pattern to the coverage of stories like this, as Al Jazeera’s Listening Post programme reports. The big tech platforms scramble to take down the offending video and then face questions over whether they did enough, quickly enough.

Mainstream news outlets enter a state of inner conflict. Playing that video on a loop is wrong, but they’ve got clicks and ratings to consider.

In this case they found a face to put on the story too – but not the murderer’s, since he is a white supremacist.

They went for New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, a white politician getting more coverage than the victims.

Listening Post presenter: Richard Gizbert

Contributors:
Jeremy Littau – Media scholar, Lehigh University
Nasya Bahfen – Senior lecturer, La Trobe University
Malaz Majanni – Founder and CEO, OnePath Network
Priyamvada Gopal – Academic and writer

Since the mosque attacks in Christchurch earlier this month, many people have called for New Zealand to examine its history of white supremacy. In this special episode of RNZ’s Black Sheep, William Ray looks at the origins of this ideology, how it warped and changed over time, and how people have fought against it.

I missed the Christchurch shooting.

My girlfriend and I were out walking the Routeburn Track that weekend. Swimming in Lake Mackenzie, watching kea stalk unattended backpacks, listening to tourists gush about how beautiful and lucky and peaceful this country is.

On the Saturday afternoon we were picked up by a bus on the Milford/Te Anau Highway. The driver knew we’d all been out contact with the outside world, so she made an announcement over the intercom:

“I’ve got some really bad news for everyone.”

I don’t remember exactly what she said after that.

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST

As soon as we got back into cellphone range my girlfriend loaded up a Reddit thread about the shooting which I read over her shoulder. There was one post which really stuck out at me:

“This is not what New Zealand is. New Zealand is a land of peace where all, regardless of race and religion are welcome. Violence, racism, and discrimination are not welcome and do not define who or what New Zealand is.”

I get what that person was trying to say but for the past three years on Black Sheep I’ve been looking at violent, racist, discriminatory New Zealanders.

John Bryce, the racist Native Affairs Minister … James Prendergast, the Supreme Court Justice who said the Treaty of Waitangi was a “simple nullity” … Roy Courlander, the New Zealand soldier who literally joined Nazi Germany’s Waffen SS.

And many, many, more.

Significant force
These people don’t define New Zealand, but they do represent a significant force in New Zealand history.

White supremacy.

In this special episode of Black Sheep, we look at the history of New Zealand through the lens of white supremacy.

We look at how the ideology influenced the voyages of Tasman and Cook, how it was used to justify the worst atrocities of the New Zealand Wars, and how it found new targets in New Zealand’s non-British migrant communities.

We also look at how some Pākeha fought to oppose this ideology and ask some tricky questions about what that dissent means for how we think about racist New Zealanders of the past.

If you want to know more about the more recent history of Islamophobia we highly recommend subscribing to RNZ’s Public Enemy podcast

You can also find out more by looking at the huge amount of work which has been done by our guests:

• Dr Leonie Pihama
• Professor Manying Ip
• Pro Vice Chancellor (Pacific) Damon Salesa
• Mark Derby
• Dr Scott Hamilton
• Distinguished Professor Paul Spoonley

This story was republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Pacific Media Centre’s Del Abcede was on the ground for last Sunday’s “love not hate” rally  with about 2000 people marching down Auckland’s Queen Street in solidarity with the victims and survivors of the Christchurch mosque terrorist attack earlier this month.

Scores of children were among the marchers with placards declaring “Stand up to Islamophobia”, “Peace, love”, “Denying racism is racism”, “Dismantle white supremacy” and “Migrants are welcome, fascists are not”.

Fifty worshippers were killed by a lone gunman in an attack on two mosques in Christchurch on March 15. New Zealand has now banned assault and semi-automatic weapons.

• Other Christchurch mosque terror stories

Love Aotearoa Hate Racism

1 of 34

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced that New Zealand will hold a Royal Commission of Inquiry into security agencies following the Christchurch terrorist attacks.

While New Zealanders and Muslim communities were still grieving they were also rightly asking questions about how the terror attack was able to take place, she said.

The inquiry will look at what could or should have been done to prevent the attack, Ardern said.

READ MORE: Asia Pacific Report stories on the Christchurch terror attack

It will probe the accused individual and his activities before the terrorist attack, including into agencies.

“It will look at the actions of SIS, the GCSB, police, Customs, Immigration and any other relevant government departments or agencies,” she said.

RNZ Checkpoint live today.

Ardern said the terms of reference had not yet been set, but these would reflect the seriousness of the attack and the need to get answers in a timely manner.

“There will be a focus on whether our intelligence community was concentrating its resources appropriately and whether there were any reports that could or should have been alerted then to this attack.

‘No stone left unturned’
“It’s important that no stone is left unturned to get to the bottom of how this act of terrorism occurred.”

Ardern said the commission would look at events leading up to the attacks, rather than the immediate emergency response to the attacks, which was work that would be done separately.

She said the government needed to balance the timeliness of the inquiry with the need to be thorough.

“We want it to be independent, we want it to be at the highest level, but we also want it to be timely … I absolutely accept that people want answers and they don’t want to be waiting a long time, but we equally have to allow the inquiry the time to do the job properly, so we’re weighing all that up,” Ardern said.

She said Royal Commissions were usually reserved for the matters of gravest public important and it was clearly the appropriate form of inquiry for this instance.

Ardern also announced that she would travel to Beijing in China on Sunday where she will meet with President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang. She will also formally open the New Zealand embassy.

Shorter visit
Ardern said it was an important visit that was planned some weeks ago but given the terrorist attacks in Christchurch it had been cut back to just one day of meetings.

Ardern said she would be back in New Zealand by Tuesday.

“I expect discussions will include a broad range of bilateral, regional and international issues of common interest, including on upgrading our free trade agreement, protecting and promoting a rules based international trading system and combating climate change.”

This story was republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

The terrorist attack on two Christchurch mosques this month is a watershed moment in New Zealand history.

In the days, months and years ahead much soul-searching will be conducted about the social and political factors that contributed to the massacre of 50 people. Here we shall focus on two: the spread of hate speech via social media; and the intelligence failures that may have contributed.

With the proliferation of social media platforms during the last decade, there has been a steady increase in their use by extremist groups. Be it Wahabbist and Salafists calling for jihad, 9/11 conspiracy theorists or white supremacists, it has given them global reach in a measure never seen before.

READ MORE: How Christchurch’s assault has made a mark on NZ media

This allows extremists in disparate parts of the world to instantly communicate and reinforce their views without having to be in physical contact. They can even plot acts of violence using encrypted platforms and the so-called “dark web”.

That is what is different today when compared to 20 years ago: the threat of decentralised, even autonomous extremist violence has increased commensurate with the emergence of social media outlets that allow them to disseminate their views.

This produces both an echo chamber and megaphone effect: not only do kindred spirits find common space to vent and practice their hate, against the perceived “other,” but more moderate, mainstream outlets begin to pick and emulate some of the language used in them.

Language that was once socially unacceptable in most democratic societies has crept into mainstream social discourse, be it about immigrants, minorities, sexual minorities or indigenous groups.

Hate-mongers turn tables
Hate speech is increasingly normalised under the mantle of free speech, where the hate-mongers turn the tables on civil libertarians by claiming that their freedom of expression is being trampled by political correctness gone mad.

That, in turn, has crept into the rhetoric of politics itself, where mainstream politicians adopt some of the language and policy postures that once were only championed by a rabid yet marginalised political fringe.

One only need to remember the anti-immigrant language of certain politicians and the misogynist, homophobic and/or xenophobic utterances of assorted radio hosts and television personalities, to say nothing of the comments section of what used to be moderate political blogs, to see how the discursive trend has evolved here.

The problem is almost exclusively a democratic one. Authoritarian regimes censor as a matter of course and control the flow of information in their societies, so what can be seen and heard is up to the regime. Unless authorised or condoned by the state, extremists are not given space to air their views in public.

Democratic societies uphold the right to free speech no matter how noxious it may be because it is exactly the unpopular views that need defending. But the principle of free speech never reckoned with the practice of social and mainstream media outlets using business models that are at least in part founded on the idea that there is money to be made in catering to extreme views.

If advertising can be sold on extremist sites and offensive speech is protected, then the bottom line advises that it is not for the media conglomerates to determine what is and what is not acceptable social discourse. That is for others to decide.

This is the public policy conundrum. Where to draw the line between free and hate speech? When does offensive speech become dangerous speech?

Violence simple separation
One would think that the answer would be simple in that any calls for violence against others, be it individual or collective in nature, is what separates offensive from hate speech.

And yet to this day democracies grapple, increasingly unsteadily, with the question of what constitutes censorable material online.

With regard to whether there was an intelligence failure, obviously, there was because the massacre occurred. But the question is whether this was due to policy errors, tactical mistakes, some combination of them or the stealth of the attacker.

At a policy level, the question has to be asked if whether the intelligence services and police placed too much emphasis after 9/11 on detecting and preventing home-grown jihadists from emerging to the detriment of focusing on white supremacist groups, of which there are a number in Aotearoa.

Given a limited amount of resources, the security community has to prioritise between possible, probable and imminent threats. So what happened here? Where a small arsenal of weapons was amassed, improvised explosives made and a lot of planning done without the authorities made aware.

It is known that the security community monitors environmental, animal activist, social justice and Māori sovereignty groups and even works with private investigative firms as partners when doing so, so why were the white supremacists not given the same level of attention?

Undercover agents
Or were they? The best form of intelligence gathering on extremist movements is via infiltration of the group by undercover agents (who can target individuals for monitoring by other means).

Perhaps there simply are not enough covert human intelligence agents to undertake the monitoring of those that would do society harm. And what happens if the person is not an active member of the groups being monitored?

If this is the case, then no amount of intelligence policy reorientation or tactical emphasis would have prevented the attack. As the saying goes in the intelligence business, “the public only hears about failures, not successes”.

New Zealand, however, must “own” this terrorist attack. It happened in our community.

Dr Paul G Buchanan is the director of 36th-Parallel Assessments, a geopolitical and strategic analysis consultancy. This article is republished with the permission of the author.

• Thousands take part in ‘love Aotearoa’ rally, reject racist terror

Thousands flocked to the “Love Aotearoa Hate Racism” rally at Aotea Square in central Auckland today in solidarity with the Muslim community in the wake of the terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch just over a week ago.

The colourful and vibrant rally vowed to “maintain unity” and spokespeople said this was another example of the “real New Zealand”, a land of compassion and love.

One speaker described the “nameless” terrorist, a white Australian who killed 50 Muslim worshippers at Friday prayers on March 15 and will appear in the High Court on April 5, as a “cockroach” who had failed to divide New Zealanders.

Speakers included Ibrar Sheikh, secretary of the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ, Ian Rintoul from Refugee Action Coalition Sydney, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson, Mike Treen from Global Peace and Justice Aotearoa, and Māori activist Joe Trinder, co-founder of the organisers, Love Aotearoa Hate Racism (LAHR).

A speaker at the Aotea solidarity rally in Auckland today. Video: Cafe Pacific

“LAHR believes that, while the shooting at the mosques was the deed of one gunman, the attack is the tragic consequence of Aotearoa’s failure to address racism within its midst,” said Joe Carolan, co-founder of LAHR.

“In contrast to the picture of ‘a peaceful, harmonious, tolerant’ society painted over the past week, Aotearoa for too long has seen the scapegoating of migrants and refugees, with mainstream politicians blaming immigration for our housing and economic crisis.

“This has given confidence to fascist elements here and overseas, culminating in last week’s tragic and harrowing outcome.”

LAHR is a coalition of unions, community, and migrant groups, which was formed last July in response to attempts by the far right to peddle Islamophobic, anti-migrant, anti-refugee politics in New Zealand.

The massive gathering in Christchurch’s Hagley Park has reassured and uplifted their shocked community, say New Zealand Muslim leaders.

About 20,000 people gathered in Hagley Park to observe two minutes of silence and the Muslim call to prayer on Friday along with thousands more at other events across the country, including Auckland’s Domain.

Pacific Media Centre photographer Del Abcede was on hand to capture these images at Ponsonby’s Al-Masjid Al-Jamie mosque and Aotea Square on a day when women across New Zealand of all faiths reclaimed the hijab. More photos can be seen on her Facebook page.

• More Christchurch mosque attack stories

Ponsonby and Aotea day of prayer, reflection

1 of 24

A former Dunedin artist has been chosen to illustrate the cover of Time magazine’s international edition for its special report on the Christchurch mosque attacks.

In the hours following the terrorist attacks last Friday, Ruby Jones, 25, responded by drawing an illustration of two women, one wearing a hijab, embracing and underneath the message: “This is your home and you should have been safe here”.

It has been widely shared on social media and has been printed as a poster and left at vigils and memorials around the world.

A few days later, the former Queen’s High School pupil was contacted by the magazine and asked to illustrate its April cover.

READ MORE: Time Magazine – “Guns in America”

“It was difficult but I guess I felt like I had a responsibility almost to provide something that spoke to everyone and was a nice peaceful tribute,” she said.

At times creating the image was a challenge as she tried to come to terms with the enormity of what happened.

“I’m also still processing what actually happened at the same time as everyone else.”

The cover shows three people holding hands looking into the night sky which includes 50 stars, one for each person killed.

“I tried to show togetherness, which is what I felt the world needed at this time.”

About two million copies of Time are produced each week.

Self-taught, Jones now lives in Wellington and does not work full-time as an illustrator.

Her father, Parry Jones, is a Dunedin artist.

Fifty people were killed in the terrorist attack on two mosques.

This story was first published by Otago Daily Times. Republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Dear Prime Minister Ardern,

I am a 13-year-old Muslim girl from Australia and I would like to publicly share my appreciation with you. I belong to the generation that was born after 11 September 2001. I have never really contemplated how dark the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant language is that permeates Australian society, because it is all I have ever known. I guess I’ve become used to hearing political leaders use that same language.

But then, after seeing the way you have responded to the terrorist attack in Christchurch, I realised that I now know what the role of a leader truly is. So I want to thank you on behalf of the Muslim community in this country for all that you’ve done since Friday. The way you have expressed support and genuine empathy for the Muslim community, and your care for the people of New Zealand as a whole, have been magnificent to see. And I wanted you to know how much it means to me.

Today I watched a video of you talking to the students at Cashmere High School regarding the terrorist attack. You showed such strength and kindness, and it made me wish I could experience the same thing in Australia. In my high school, not a single teacher or figure of authority even mentioned the attacks. They didn’t acknowledge that a white supremacist murdered 50 innocent Muslim men, women and children in a usually peaceful place of worship. They didn’t offer support or reach out to the Muslim girls in my school or even provide counselling services for grief and support.

In a country that is so similar to New Zealand, and yet also so different, can you imagine the comfort that my Muslim friends and I felt, knowing there was one leader in a neighbouring country that was on our side? My friends and I are Muslim; we were all born in Australian and it is the only place we have ever known. But this has been the first time we have ever felt like we were part of the fabric of a community, and it breaks my heart that this feeling of belonging has come at the cost of 50 lives. If only more politicians had the courage to stand up to injustices and knew when to stop playing political games with the lives of people who depend on them.

Your leadership has brought the world together. By supporting the New Zealand community, no matter what their religion, you have shown what a great leader you are ― not just in the good times, but when the times are as dark as can be. I cannot imagine any other political leader doing what you have done. I think that you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize! Many world leaders could learn a lot from the way you have held your nation together and comforted those who are grieving.

I’m sure you will remain Prime Minister of New Zealand for a long time. But if not, do you think maybe you could move to Australia and become our Prime Minister? That would be a dream come true.

Thank you again for all that you have done.

From an Australian-Muslim girl who now knows what real leadership looks like,

Summer Joyan

All Black and devout Muslim Sonny Bill Williams hopes New Zealanders will embrace Islam more in light of last week’s terror attack in Christchurch.

Williams was part of the 20,000-strong crowd that attended yesterday’s call to prayer in Hagley Park, Christchurch, to mark the one week anniversary since the attack.

The call to prayer, the adhan, is an Islamic practice that is observed by devotees five times a day. The call to prayer took place about 1.30pm, lasting about one minute and 40 seconds.

It was attended by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Muslim community leaders, local iwi and international dignitaries, among others. It was followed by two minutes of silence, which has been observed nationally.

Williams, who previously played rugby for Toulon in France, said he had been proud of the way New Zealanders had embraced the faith since the attacks, but hopes for more acceptance.

“People don’t really know what Islam is. I feel like to get that light, you need that knowledge and you need to understand what Islam is, so it can give that light which will get rid of the darkness,” he said.

He told RNZ Checkpoint he wanted to attend the ceremony as “proud Muslim and a proud New Zealander … to come down here and show some love”.

“Being a naturally shy person, I knew that I had to step out and be vulnerable and show that we are Muslims, but we are humans and New Zealanders as well,” he said.

He said he now left it in the hands of New Zealanders to find out more about Islam, because “it truly is a religion of peace and love”.

Williams said the charity he partnered with for the victims of the attacks had raised more than $200,000.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

• More Christchurch mosque attack stories

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Former Pacific Media Watch project reporter Rahul Bhattarai has talked to the South African independent news service eNews Channel Africa News about last Friday’s mosque massacre in New Zealand.

The Johannesburg host talked to him by Skype for an update on “how New Zealand is coping” in the wake of the attack by a white supremacist gunman on worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch a week ago today, leaving 50 people dead.

eNews Channel Africa has been a big media hit in South Africa and currently broadcasts live on DStv 403.

The channel made history when it launched on June 1, 2008, becoming South Africa’s first 24-hour news service.

Since then, it has dominated the market.

Live reports, breaking news, sport, weather, entertainment, financial and business updates all form part of its offering, along with a host of topical current affairs shows.

eNCA has bureaus across South Africa and also has correspondents covering Zimbabwe, Ghana, and Tanzania, the US and Europe.