Hate Crime in New Zealand: Mass Murder in the Mosques

There's a sick video he uploaded, not unlike the hundreds or thousands of other videos people upload to live leak of shootings and executions.

He was bragging on social media about his exploits, intentions and desire to start a left vs right war.

Our online shit posting trolling fuck with people for fun culture shares some of the blame for this. The shooter stated he wanted people to shit post, cause shit online and make and spread memes about the shooting.

People are too decentralized to violence because we've turned it into entertainment and amusement.

He live streamed 17 minutes of it. 

There’s a manifesto, full of references to shitposting memes and 8chan. 

And then there’s Scheer’s generic response. Ugh. 

WWWTT wrote:

WOW I'm really sorry for the innocent victims and wish the wounded all the power to heal from this horror inflicted upon them and to the surviving families friends and loved ones.

Very shocking such a nightmare can come from New Zealand! Never seen this one coming. But perhaps because New Zealand is so far away from the GTA in Canada, I never hear about racial religious etc etc tensions from there?

The killer said that was his point. That no place is safe from his ilk.

..good discussion on today's democracy now.

White Supremacist Kills 49 Muslim Worshipers in New Zealand as Islamophobic Hate Crimes Rise Globally

quote:

FARID HAFEZ: I mean, look—I mean, look at this manifesto of “the great replacement,” as he called it, which is actually taken—which is a slogan within the new right, “the great replacement,” the idea that Jewish and Muslim conspiracies are trying to Islamize Western countries, to replace white population, right? So this is the core idea behind this slogan.

So, this manifesto, as much as the manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, yes, to a large extent, it drew massively on the writings of far-right ideologues, but that’s only one part of the story. The other part of the story is that it also draws a lot on mainstream journalists, right? And I think this is really what we have to have the discussion all about, because if we start now, like we did it with Breivik, discuss a lone wolf, white supremacist terrorist attack, that’s part of the story, absolutely, and this is a problem, and terrorism committed by white supremacists is a problem, but we really have to raise the question: What is the larger context in which all of this is happening? And again, all of these manifestos speak to the reality of a large discourse that is shared, a hegemonic, anti-Muslim, racist discourse that we have in so many Western countries.

quote:

FARID HAFEZ: I think, in terms of political stakeholders, political leaders, media spokesperson, etc., I think this is a time where we have to deeply reflect upon our deeds, upon our words, about how we’ve been discussing and creating the so-called Muslim problem within the last 20 to 30 years. I think this is the time where we have to reflect: Where does this all end in? Where does this all go to? What is, at the end of the day, the society that we create? Because this is not only about the dehumanization of Muslim people who have been praying during the Friday prayer; it has also been a dehumanizing of all of our hearts, where people who have been watching these videos, it does something with our hearts, it does something with our minds. It normalizes a certain way of killing people. Right? I mean, it changes our societies.

And if we agree that the way the discourse on Islam and Muslims has been made the last 10, 20, 30 years, and we see that we are all part of this, then this might be the beginning point to really make a change. I mean, you have given—at the beginning of this interview, you have given this example of this one lawmaker in New Zealand named Fraser Anning, who was speaking about the horrible attacks on one side, but at the same time arguing that Muslim immigration is a cause of this. So, that’s the wrong way how to discuss these issues.

And I really do fear that, yes, many political leaders all around the world have been saying, “Well, this was a cruel terrorist attack.” But I really raise the question, like: What will happen tomorrow? What will happen after tomorrow? Will all of these political leaders really take concrete steps, first by changing the way they are talking, second by reviewing the legislations, anti-terrorism legislations, countering violent extremism legislations, and, third of all, really they want to take concrete steps to fight racism, structural racism, and to change the way they have been dealing with all of these issues throughout the last decades? I think that’s really the question that is at stake at the moment. And we will see if people really take it as a chance to make a change, or if everything will just go on the way it has been for the last three decades.

Paladin1 wrote:

People online were wishing him good luck. 

The MAGA crowd seems quite split between:

1) praising the terrorist

2) denying that the terrorist who praised Trump could have in any way felt inspired by him

3) stating that the slaughter was a false flag either organized by US democrats, the Muslims themselves, or the global elite

4) defending Trump claiming that he never ever said a hateful thing

Paladin1 wrote:

This was planned over two years. How does one combat online extremism?

Try and force people online to reveal their identity so someone preaching hate and violence can be easilier identified and intersected by police? Do we have a right to anonymous free speech online? We know people's identity gets abused during debates when people start harassing their family, them at home or their work place.

Stricter rules on hate speech? Make people's views and opinions illegal? 

I'm pretty sure New Zealand already has laws against hate speech. People usually find ways around such laws, either through dog whistles, or keeping the venom just slightly below the threshold required to qualify as a crime.

NorthReport wrote:

Lax gun control laws lead to this

How many massacres do we need before we take away all the guns from humans as they are not fit to own them

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/15/asia/new-zealand-gun-control-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Yes I believe the gun/weapon issue should take centre stage in all of this. But until I do more reading, I'm totally in the dark about New Zealand.

Really, all I know is that it was an English colony, there is Indiginous peoples there, some movies are made there, it's geographically on the ring of fire, and the climate and weather is nice.

I remember having this gun control vs racism etc etc debate here on babble as to causes and prevention. But those were about mass shootings in the US. And from icm exposure over decades, I can honestly say I can feel more confident in making an opinion. But New Zealand????? 

Almost don't know where to start?

WWWTT wrote:

Yes I believe the gun/weapon issue should take centre stage in all of this.

So does the shooter. He stated he could have used a vehicle or bomb to achieve the same body count but he specifically picked firearms in order to drive the (American) left wing to push for more gun control (ultimately hoping to attack the 2nd amendment) which he theorized would anger the right. He wants the left and right to goto war with each other.

This post is speculative at this early time, but I wonder how much of the killer's behaviour was previously easily decernable, or his dangerous predelictions had previously appeared on social media, if any? 

It was repeated several times by the NZ PM that he was "not on any watch list", presumably for either of the Five Eyes countries, Australia his home, or New Zealand where he stated he went originally to "train" for attacks. 

The focus of western "homeland" security state enforcement is primarily aimed at presumed threats from muslims and other designated enemies of the state, rather than homegrown ultra-right militias or individuals: 

In the US, violent rightwing activity was linked to at least 50 deaths in 2018. Research by the Anti-Defamation League showed that over the last decade, 73.3% of all extremist-related fatalities in the US could be linked to domestic right-wing extremists, while 23.4% were attributable to Islamist extremists....

In the US, experts at the Soufan Centre, founded by the former FBI special agent Ali Soufan, described a “long-running US double standard with concerns over crime and terrorism that are inspired by the narrative of Bin Ladenism versus crime and terrorism inspired by right-wing ideology”....

.So are we nearing the moment of turnaround, when counterterrorist agencies get the upper hand? Many specialists fear the answer is no, simply because the resources and attention focused on rightwing violence are insufficient....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/15/what-does-christchurch-att...

To add to that, enforcement resources are not only used for tracking and gathering evidence, but also for fabricating otherise non-existent threats. This includes luring otherwise harmless mentally challenged individuals into "muslim terrorist plots" devised entirely by enforcement agencies such as the FBI. This has happened in the US many times and there is at least one very glaring case of it happening in Canada with the RCMP:

https://infotel.ca/newsitem/canada-day-terrorists-were-coerced-by-police...

One wonders that if some the enormous resources that go into fabricating cases and generating fear of designated enemies went instead into monitoring ultra-rightist threats if this would have happened. 

As I said, this is speculative at this point for this particular case, it may turn out that the anti-muslim terrorist attack was cleverly hidden from the view of all enforcement agencies. We might find out.

How can he organize online for two years and not be detected but some teenage kids in Ontario who are Muslim were being investigated by the FBI and on a watch list?

Vigils everywhere tonite but we are going to have to be much more pro-active, vigilant and start reporting these sick bastards the moment they rear their ugly heads And we need to be relentless with our elected reps as well ensuring there is a massive crackdown and that we do  not give an inch to these very dangerous creeps

.

At this early point I believe that this individual was and still is in need of mental healthcare. 

If someone goes out and kills someone, for whatever reasons beyond self defence, there’s something wrong upstairs that needs to be to be addressed!

These individuals committing these acts of violence are victims also that need help. If more money is spent on medical health, including mental health, perhaps these individuals could have been helped earlier on and this needless man made disaster could have been completely avoided. 

Demonizing of any people’s needs to stop as well. It sure as fuck doesn’t help shit nothing!

The guns and more importantly the bullets have got to go!

But at this point I still believe that people’s attitudes towards mental health has to change. Mental health is very underrated and needs to be publicly funded by far greater amounts. 

 The same  gist as my previous post:

Misguided Spying and the New Zealand Massacre  March 15, 2019 

By Suzie Dawson

....

We know thanks to the findings of an inquiry by the State Services Commission last December that as many as a dozen government agencies, including the NZ Police, were too busy squandering their resources spying on NGOs such as GreenpeaceNZ; political parties such as the New Zealand Green Party and then-Internet Party aligned Mana Movement, as well as on anti-TPP protesters and activists such as myself.

As if that wasn’t egregious enough, they were even spying on Christchurch earthquake insurance claimants and historical victims of institutional state child abuse.....

The government contractor engaged to perform the on-the-ground victimization of targets is the notorious Thompson & Clark Investigations Limited — a company I had been publicly naming since April of 2012 for having targeted my independent media team and me. A company that we now know was illegally granted access to New Zealand police databases on thousands of occasions, and that has been linked to the NZ Security Intelligence Services.

Their nefarious activities are not isolated to the private sector. The NZ Police have also been found to have made thousands of warrantless data requests.

In 2014 acclaimed New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager — himself judged by a court to have been wrongfully targeted by the NZ Police as a result of his reporting — revealed in his seminal book “Dirty Politics”that a political network that went as high as the Office of the prime minister of New Zealand– under ex-Prime Minister John Key, who was then minister in charge of the NZ security services — had targeted dozens of journalists,as well as other political targets and issue-based dissenters. 

What the police and intelligence agencies of New Zealand must recognize is thus: Journalism is not terrorism. Non-violent pro-democratic activism is not terrorism. Dissent is not terrorism.

Arming yourself with weapons and violently attacking innocent people is terrorism....

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/15/misguided-spying-and-the-new-zeala...

WWWTT wrote:

The guns and more importantly the bullets have got to go!

Do you think if guns and bullets were all banned/illegal this massacre 100% wouldn't have happened?

Paladin1 wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

The guns and more importantly the bullets have got to go!

Do you think if guns and bullets were all banned/illegal this massacre 100% wouldn't have happened?

Very few things in life in are 100% risk. If we were to accept that as the standard for new laws or regulations, no rules regulating the auto or airline industry in terms of safety standards would ever have been introduced because none could reduce the death rate with these vehicles to zero. Almost certainly eliminating semi-automatics, which are not hunting weapons, would have meant the number of deaths in this and other mass slaughters would have been reduced.

WWWTT wrote:

To the extent that the guns/bullets brought it to? Of course!

Its very possible that without guns, these individuals may have never felt so empowered to even try to pull it off. 

You may be right, he may have felt too timid.or something to pull it off.

I mentioned earlier that the killer openly stated he could have used anything but he picked guns on purpose with the intention of pushing the left to start pushing for more gun control. Which of course is what's happening.

Me? I think after thinking about this for 2 years, and the amount of hate he had, he would have used a knife or truck of homemade bomb. Maybe less would have died, maybe more.

Since you mentioned debating, suppose after this attack New Zealand bans all guns. Next year someone kills 20 people with a knife- would you say ban knives? Like in the UK?

Jerrym I've heard that comment about semi-autos often enough. I'm not a hunter but semi-autos are just as much hunting rifles as any other firearm. Two of the most iconic hunting firearms, Remington 870 shotgun and 700 bolt action are also among the most widely used guns by police and military.

I know some countries however do ban or heavily heavily restrict semi-autos. I find it's a disingenuous argument to think semi-automatic firearms are the dangerous ones.

WWWTT wrote:

To the extent that the guns/bullets brought it to? Of course!

Its very possible that without guns, these individuals may have never felt so empowered to even try to pull it off. 

But who can say for sure?

I still feel that mental healthcare or lack of played the biggest part in all of this. 

This is how I rate the importance in addressing this type of violence 

1. Mental healthcare 

2. Gun/bullet restrictions/banning 

3.Hate

If any poster wants to add or debate the above list, you’re all welcome to. 

Now hate and mental healthcare are probably both closely related but for the sake of the comment I’ll write them separately. 

I want to start by saying I agree with your list -- although I am unsure of the ranking. I am not certain that one can be done without the others. If I had to put rank them I could produce the same order as you but I think little divides them so they are close. More to the point I think of effectiveness, difficulty and speed in saving lives. Looking at it this way, regulation and restriction of firearms may offer more imediate effect than mental health even though mental health is the root cause and ultimately the most important. Put another way, urgency and importance may not produce the same rank order.

I think many lives can be saved faster by the mitigation of firearms/ammunition controls even where the ultimate resolution might only be through mental health.

I think all of the priorities you mention in terms of action ought to be acted on at the same time -- also plus intelligence and police work.

Mental health and reduction of hate speech is the ultimate solution but the policework and arms control offer the fastest mitigation (not resolution) while we work on the rest.

JKR wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

At this early point I believe that this individual was and still is in need of mental healthcare. 

If someone goes out and kills someone, for whatever reasons beyond self defence, there’s something wrong upstairs that needs to be to be addressed!

These individuals committing these acts of violence are victims also that need help. If more money is spent on medical health, including mental health, perhaps these individuals could have been helped earlier on and this needless man made disaster could have been completely avoided. 

Demonizing of any people’s needs to stop as well. It sure as fuck doesn’t help shit nothing!

The guns and more importantly the bullets have got to go!

But at this point I still believe that people’s attitudes towards mental health has to change. Mental health is very underrated and needs to be publicly funded by far greater amounts. 

What mental health condition do you think he had?

Yes. Do tell.

It seems that most people in society when subjected with such a horrific scenario just tip-toe around the situation praying that they will not have to be personally involved Haven’t we learned from our relatively recent history that until we acquire the courage to immediately confront these evils they will just continue to esculate

For example the people that have spoken out in support of what happened in New Zealand need to be immediately rounded up and charged with hate crimes 

‘This is not a game’

https://globalnews.ca/news/5059610/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-waleed-aly/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015

Hatred has consequences

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/hatred-has-consequences-immigration-minister-says-online-hate-fuels-racist-attacks-1.4338571

Misfit wrote:

They don’t deserve help. They are evil and nothing more.

Perhaps not, but if greater support for mental health services can reduce the killing those who could die do deserve the help.

Prior to the last election there was adiscussion here about mental health services as a defence against violence. Most here were very open to understanding this and the NDP under Layton and Mulcair spoke up about this. A police state on our border looking at immigrants will do less to protect people than an examination of the mental heatlh status of Canadians.

True, you can debate after the crime about whether the criminal deserves mental health services. But before the crime, this person is often a person in trouble. The ideology of hate is something to hate.... But how do we keep lettting our anger ignore the fact that these crimes keep getting perpetrated by people with serious mental illnesses?

Now I also agree that the focus on mental illness is problematic if you extend the presumption of risk to all those facing mental illness of any kind.  But that is a step you do not have to take. We do not need to deny extreme types of illness in order to differentiate between other types of illness and the vast majority risk free cases. Otherwise, this would be like saying a person with a cold is going to die becuase stage 4 cancer kills. Shouldn't we deal with generalizations in other ways than to suggest that we must say that stage 4 cancer is not an illness in order to prevent people from being worried about a cold? It is true that mental illness where a person becomes a danger to society is extremely rare -- but so is stage 4 cancer.

Offering society greater mental health services does not mean taking away all responsibility for a person's actions either.

Now does mental health change the terrible reality of hate. But compromised mental health can leave a person more at risk of the argument of hate. Again this does not change the fact that mental illness does not lead to hate. But it is worth noting that mental illness can affect a person's ability to deal with it when they are confronted with it.

It seems ridiculous on a progressive site to have to argue that a society is safer from violence when there are supports for mental health than when they are not. It seems just as ridiculous for people to refuse to hear that this argument is in no way a suggestion that mental illness means a person will be dangerous. The vast majority of people will function better with support for mental health. This includes the small minority who are capable of violence. This support is unlikely to prevent all cases of violence. How many does it have to prevent for it to be worth supplying what is an essential service to all people anyway? Mental health support is one of those things that has tremendous benefit apart from any safety it brings society -- it has a good argument without even recognition of this benefit.

But let's discuss mental health and violence and whether or not it can make a difference and whether or not the people at risk, as a class, deserve support. Let's start that discussion with the realization that the majority of violence causing death is aimed at the self. Suicide.

More mental health support will save lives even though the vast, vast, vast, majority of mental illnesses cause no danger to others.