A leaked document has revealed secretive plans to revise terror laws in New Zealand so that people can be charged over statements deemed to constitute material support for a proscribed organisation.

It shows the government also wants to widen the criteria for proscribing organisations to include groups that are judged to “facilitate” or “promote and encourage” terrorist acts.

The changes would see the South Pacific nation falling in line with increasingly repressive Western countries like the UK, where scores of independent journalists and anti-genocide protesters have been arrested and charged under terrorism laws in recent months.

The consultation document, handed over to the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties (NZCCL), reveals the government has been in contact with a small number of unnamed groups this year over plans to legally redefine what material support involves, so that public statements or gestures involving insignia like flags can lead to charges if construed as support for proscribed groups.

As part of a proposal to revise the Terrorism Suppression Act, the document suggests the process for designating organisations as terror groups should be changed by “expanding the threshold to enable more modern types of entities to be designated, such as those that ‘facilitate’ or ‘promote and encourage’ terrorist acts”.

The Ministry of Justice has been contacted in an attempt to ascertain which groups it has been consulting with and why it believed the changes were necessary.

NZCCL chairman Thomas Beagle told Mick Hall In Context his group was concerned the proposed changes were a further attempt to limit the rights of New Zealanders to engage in political protest.

‘What’s going on?’
“When you look at the proposal to expand the Terrorism Suppression Act, alongside the Police and IPCA conspiring to propose a law change to ban political protest without government permission, you really have to wonder what’s going on,” he said.

A report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) in February proposed to give police the right to ban protests if they believed there was a high chance of public disorder and threats to public safety.

That would potentially mean bans on Palestinian solidarity protests if far right counter protestErs posed a threat of violent confrontation.

The stand-alone legislation would put New Zealand in line with other Five Eyes and NATO-aligned security jurisdictions such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

Beagle points out proposed changes to terror laws would suppress freedom of speech and further undermine freedom of assembly and the right to protest.

“We’ve seen what’s happening with the state’s abuse of terrorism suppression laws in the UK and are horrified that they have sunk so far and so quickly,” he said.

More than 100 people were arrested across the UK on suspicion of supporting Palestine Action, a non-violent protest group proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the British government earlier this month.

Arrests in social media clips
Social media clips showed pensioners aggressively arrested while attending rallies in Liverpool, London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol and Truro over the weekend.

Independent journalists and academics have also faced state repression under the UK’s Terrorism Act.

Among those targeted was Electronic Intifada journalist Asa Winstanley, who had his home raided and devices seized in October last year as part of the opaque counter-terror drive “Operation Incessantness”.

In May, the country’s Central Criminal Court ruled the raid was unlawful.

Journalist Richard Medhurst has had a terror investigation hanging over his head since being detained at Heathrow Airport in August last year and charged under section 8 of the Terrorism Act. Activist and independent journalist Sarah Wilkinson had her house raided in the same month.

Others have faced similar intimidation and threats of jail. In November 2024, Jewish academic Haim Bresheeth was charged after police alleged he had expressed support for a “proscribed organisation” during a speech outside the London residence of the Israeli ambassador to the UK.

Meanwhile, dozens of members of Palestine Action are in jail facing terror charges. The vast majority are being held on remand where they may wait two years before going to trial — a common state tactic to take activists off the street and incarcerate them, knowing the chances of conviction are slim when they eventually go to court.

‘Targeted amendments’
The document says the New Zealand government wants to progress “targeted amendments” to the Act, creating or amending offences “to capture contemporary behaviours and activities of concern” like “public expressions of support for a terrorist act or designated entities, for example by showing insignia or distributing propaganda or instructional material.”

It proposes to improve “the timeliness of the process, by considering changes to who the decision-maker is” and extending the renewal period from three to five years.

The document suggests consulting the Attorney-General over designation-related decisions to ensure legal requirements are met may not be required and questions whether the designation process requiring the Prime Minister to review decisions twice is necessary. It asks whether others, like the Foreign Minister, should be involved in the decision-making process.

Beagle believes the secretive proposals pose a threat to New Zealand’s liberal democracy.

“Political protest is an important part of New Zealand’s history,” he said.

“Whether it’s the environment, worker’s rights, feminism, Māori issues, homosexual law reform or any number of other issues, political protest has had a big part in forming what Aotearoa New Zealand is today.

Protected under Bill of Rights
“It’s a right protected by New Zealand’s Bill of Rights and is a critical part of being a functioning democracy.”

The terror laws revision forms part of a wider trend of legislating to close down dissent over New Zealand’s foreign policy, now closely aligned with NATO and US interests.

The government is also widening the definition of foreign interference in a way that could see people who “should have known” that they were being used by a foreign state to undermine New Zealand’s interests prosecuted.

The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, which passed its first reading in Parliament on November 19, would criminalise the act of foreign interference, while also increasing powers of unwarranted searches by authorities.

The Bill is effectively a reintroduction of the country’s old colonial sedition laws inherited from Britain, the broadness of the law having allowed it to be used against communists, trade unionists and indigenous rights activists.

Republished from Mick Hall in Context on Substack with permisson.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea police will be able to use lethal force to deal with crimes that come under “domestic terrorism” through the amendments to the Criminal Code Act.

Police Commissioner David Manning said this as the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC) continue to work for stronger law enforcement powers to fight against domestic terrorists causing havoc in some parts of the country, such as in the mountainous Bosavi region.

Commissioner Manning said that the kidnappings and held-for-ransom cases were part of “domestic terrorism”.

“The amendments establish clear legal process for the escalated use of up to lethal force, powers of search and seizure, and detention for acts of domestic terrorism.

“It is high time that we call these criminals as domestic terrorists, because that is what they are and we need harsher measures to bring them to justice one way or another,” he said.

“Domestic terrorism includes the deliberate use of violence against people and communities to murder, injure and intimidate, including kidnapping and ransom, and the destruction of properties.

“An accurate definition of domestic terrorism also includes hate crimes, including tribal fight and sorcery and related violence.”

New crime trend
A new crime trend has emerged in PNG with kidnappings and held-for-ransom cases happening over the last six years with more than six kidnappings and ransom demands occurring since 2014.

However, it took the kidnapping of the New Zealand-born Australian professor and the demand for ransom this year to bring to light several years of continued kidnappings and demand for ransoms on expatriates and locals working at logging camps and elsewhere in Western province and the Highlands region.

Localised kidnappings have also continued with successful returns of victims particularly children.

Other domestic terrorism crimes include:

• Organised crimes;
• Weapons smuggling;
• Illegal drug production and distribution; and
• People trafficking.

“The RPNGC, through the Minister for Internal Security, is putting forward amendments to the Criminal Code Act that will strengthen police capacity to search, investigate, intercept and prosecute people and groups involved in domestic terrorism,” Manning said.

Commissioner Manning said the way criminals operated had changed, particularly in the use of information and communications technologies, and police powers needed to be strengthened.

“The amendments will enable more effective lawful communications interception of channels and electronic devices used by domestic terrorists,” he said.

Criminal internet use
“Many of our laws do not take sufficient account of the way criminals, including domestic terrorists, use the internet and phone systems in carrying out violent crimes, and this is a key area for reform.”

Commissioner Manning said the new amendments would build on previous related legislation, and go even further to tip the balance of justice and public safety away from the criminals.

“Amendments have been made to the Criminal Code, such as in 2022 by the government to strengthen laws against so-called glassman or glassmeri [people with the power to accuse women and men of witchcraft and sorcery] and the vile crimes they commit — especially against women, children and the elderly.

“The amendments will further improve law and order co-operation and collaboration with international partners through training, equipment, technical advice and the use of new technologies and resources.

“Having interoperability with domestic and international partners requires the proper and recognised definition of a domestic terrorist and acts of domestic terrorism, as will be clear in the amendments.”

According to information put together by the PNG Post-Courier since 2014 there have been a string of kidnappings that have occurred with a report of K300,000 (NZ$140,000) paid for the return of six expatriates held by armed men allegedly from the Southern Highlands.

The latest kidnapping saw 17 girls, two of whom were married, taken by armed men in the Bosavi LLG, also in Southern Highlands. They were later released with about K3000 (NZ$1400) paid and several pigs offered to the kidnappers.

Police have remained quiet with Post-Courier understanding that investigations continue to be carried out in the latest kidnapping incident and the case of the abducted professor and local researchers.

Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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.

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.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Filipinos and the people of Hong Kong are both in need of prayers over recently-passed security laws that threaten to undermine their basic freedoms and human rights, says the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).

The bishops’ call came after they recently received a letter from Yangon Archbishop Charles Cardinal Maung Bo, president of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, making an “ardent request for prayers” for the Hong Kong people following the passage of the new National Security Act.

In a pastoral letter signed on July 16 by its acting president, Caloocan Bishop Pablo Virgilio David, the CBCP said that after assuring the Yangon Archbishop they would join him in prayers for Hong Kong, they also asked him to pray for the Philippines “and explained why we are as seriously in need of prayers as the people of Hong Kong”.

READ MORE: Stars and supporters protest against ABS-CBD shutdown in democracy rally

“Like them, we are also alarmed about the recent signing into law of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020,” the CBCP said.

Bishop David, a vocal critic of the Duterte administration, is temporarily heading the CBCP while its president, Davao Archbishop Romulo Valles, is recovering from a stroke.

Bishop David’s statement is among the most stinging from the CBCP since Valles’ predecessor, Archbishop Socrates Villegas, stepped down in November 2017.

Fast-tracked anti-terror law
In its statement, the CBCP said it remains in “disbelief” over the manner of how the anti-terror law was passed under the Duterte administration – especially by how it was fast-tracked in Congress while Filipinos were grappling with the coronavirus pandemic and how lawmakers ignored the people’s protests against it.

“The dissenting voices were strong but they remained unheeded,” the CBCP said, adding that “the political pressure from above seemed to weigh more heavily on our legislators than the voices from below”.

The Filipino bishops noted how the people in government and their supporters have “dismissed” all the fears raised over the new law as “unfounded”.

“The assurance that they give sounds strangely parallel to that which the Chinese government gave to the people of Hong Kong: ‘Activism is not terrorism. You have no reason to be afraid if you are not terrorists.’

“We know full well that it is one thing to be actually involved in a crime and another thing to be merely suspected or accused of committing a crime,” the CBCP said.

At the very least, the CBCP said, several petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Anti-Terrorism Law.

“Will the highest level of our judiciary assert its independence, or will they, too, succumb to political pressure?” they said.

Semblance of democracy
In their pastoral letter, the CBCP warned that the return of “warrantless detentions” through the anti-terror law was reminiscent of how the country gradually lost its democracy in 1972.

“While a semblance of democracy is still in place and our democratic institutions somehow continue to function, we are already like the proverbial frog swimming in a pot of slowly boiling water,” the CBCP said.

Fortunately, the bishops noted, there remain in the present government “people of  goodwill whose hearts are in the right places, and who remain objective and independent-minded.”

The CBCP hoped these government officials will not allow themselves to be intimidated or succumb to political pressure.

“They are an important element to the strengthening of our government institutions, and are an essential key to a stable and functional democratic system,” the bishops said.

The CBCP ended the pastoral letter with a prayer, part of which said:

“May the crisis brought about by the pandemic bring about conversion and a change of heart in all of us. May it teach us to rise above personal and political loyalties and make us redirect all our efforts towards the common good.”

Stars and supporters protest over ABS-CBN shutdown
Meanwhile, enraged supporters and employees of shuttered media network ABS-CBN – including its biggest stars – took to the streets on Saturday, just over a week after the House of Representatives rejected its franchise renewal application, and days after the company announced a major retrenchment affecting more than 11,000 workers.

They held a noise barrage and a motorcade that passed through several cities before ending up at the ABS-CBN compound in Quezon City.

Actress and activist Angel Locsin was among the protesters. She was joined by her fiance, Neil Arce.

Actress Angel Locsin calls on fellow celebrities to speak up, not to be afraid. Here’s an excerpt of her speech today. | via @beacupin pic.twitter.com/TjZaK1pjVc

— Rappler (@rapplerdotcom) July 18, 2020

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

OPINION: SunStar editorial in Cebu

So it goes. Nineteen senators in the Philippines Senate have approved on the third and final reading of Senate Bill (SB) 1083 this week, effectively giving more teeth to the Human Security Act of 2007, which was a watered down version of the 1996 Anti-Terror Act of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile.

SB 1083 is the Philippines’ response of commitment to international efforts in the fight against terror.

Authored by Senator Panfilo Lacson, the bill intends to fortify the legal backbone in the fight against terror, equip law enforcers with necessary tools to carry out operations, and safeguard the rights of those accused of the crime.

READ MORE: Senate approves anti-terrorism bill on final reading

SB 1083 defines terrorism as a crime “committed by any person who within or outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution; engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life; engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property: engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure; develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions.”

The law allows the police or military to conduct a 60-day surveillance on suspected terrorists, although this can be lengthened to another non-extendable period of 30 days with judicial authority.

A suspected person can be detained without a warrant of arrest for 14 days, or 10 more days if authorities deem it necessary. This happens to be one of the provisions that angered Senator Francis Pangilinan, who voted with Senator Risa Hontiveros against the bill.

“The prolonged detention is an impingement of rights and liberty. Why 14 days? If security officials and law enforcers are doing their job, why will it take them long to file a case?” Pangilinan said.

‘Produce or invent evidence later?’
“Or, is the practice of arrest and detain now, produce or invent evidence later still prevalent, as it was when opposition leader Jovy Salonga was arrested, detained, and charged in 1981? The current law is not perfect, and, we, in Congress, should be working continuously to make it work for the people.”

Lacson, on the other hand, assures that the bill provides sufficient safeguard to ensure the basic human rights of the accused. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) shall immediately be notified in case of detention of a suspected terrorist.

The measure also mandates the CHR to give highest priority to investigate and prosecute violations of civil and political rights of persons and to prosecute officials or law enforcers who violate the basic rights of the suspects or detained persons.

The catch, however, is that SB 1083 removed the provision of payment of P500,000 (NZ$15,500) damages for each day of detention of persons acquitted of terrorism charges.

Events, however, render the SB 1083 at once timely and yet ill-timed. Timely while extremist terror is breathing down the neck of countries, but ill-timed most especially while we have a government that, while publicly claiming openness, seems at heart intolerant to dissent, indulging itself in a spree of red-tagging, arresting students, academics, social workers, priests and activists.

SB 1083 also comes at a time when government holds the most expensive intelligence work there is as far as budget goes, at a whopping P4.9 billion (NZ$154 million). With that much arm, we now have a highly omnipresent Big Brother practically watching over its citizens’ shoulders at any given time of the day.

This tilts the balance of power entirely and, if the wrong hands take the rein, might easily endanger our democracy.

SunStar is an independent community newspaper and online portal based in Cebu, Philippines. This editorial was published on 27 February 2020.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ

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.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written for, and first published by, German magazine Cicero.de (ref. Attentat in Christchurch – Willkommen in der Hölle). Thanks also to Prof David Robie, Pacific Media Centre AsiaPacificReport.nz for providing the featured image for this article.

OUT OF THE BLUE:

It was 1:39pm, Friday March 15. As was usual for a Friday hundreds of people had turned up to pray at the Al Noor Mosque in Riccarton, Christchurch. All was peaceful, women, children, men, people of all ages young and old, both Sunni and Shia, were in contemplative repose free of worry. It was a mild, late summer, 20 degrees celsius day. Earlier, the touring Bangladesh Cricket Team had briefly visited the mosque, but left early to attend a press conference. By 1:39pm, they had returned and were outside exiting a bus, intending to continue with their prayers inside the mosque.

At 1:40pm, ahead of the team, a man entered the mosque walking quickly up the front steps. He was carrying an assault rifle and dressed in combat uniform. He immediately began shooting people who were kneeling in prayer. The shots rang out and the Bangladesh team members realising they were witnesses to an attack, retreated, and fled on foot to nearby Hagley Park.

Back inside the Al Noor Mosque scores of worshipers were being gunned down, some killed instantly, others bleeding to death. The victims included little Mucaad Ibrahim who was three years of age.

Mucaad was known by his loved ones as a wise “old soul” and possessed an “intelligence beyond his years”.

Eye witnesses said that once the killer began shooting people, little Mucaad became separated from his family. In the chaos, his family could not find him. The next day Police confirmed he too had been shot dead by the killer.

The murders continued at the Al Noor Mosque until the killer’s firearms ran out of bullets. Then, he simply walked out of the mosque, got in his car, and drove six kilometres to the Linwood Mosque. There too were people who had gathered for their regular Friday afternoon prayers.

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 focussed. 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.

Inside the Linwood Mosque, another witness, Shoaib Gani, was kneeling in prayer. He heard a noise like fireworks but he and others weren’t too concerned and continued with their prayers. Then, as he and his fellow worshipers were kneeling speaking verses from the Koran, the man next to him fell forward with blood pouring from his head. He had been shot and killed instantly, Mr Gani said. Then others too began falling to the floor dead.

Mr Gani crawled under a table. He saw the killer and his firearm. “Written on the rifle were the words, ‘Welcome to hell’,” he said.

Victims, who were wounded and bleeding, were pleading with Mr Gani to help them. But he was frozen to a spot under a table knowing that the killer was walking around the mosque killing as many people as he could. Mr Gani believed he too would also soon be dead, so he reached for his cellphone, he called his parent’s back home in India. But no one answered. He tried to call his father’s number, but the phone kept ringing. He saw people around him bleeding to death. Others with fatal head-wounds “their brains were hanging out. I just couldn’t do anything. I didn’t know what to do.” Mr Gani phoned 111 (the New Zealand emergency number) and told the authorities people were dead and injured: “The lady on the phone asked me to stay on the line as long as I could.”

Outside, Abdul Aziz picked up one of the killer’s discarded shotguns. Inside the mosque, the killer’s assault rifle ran out of bullets. The killer then “dropped his firearm” and ran back to his vehicle. He got in the driver’s seat. Mr Aziz then ran toward the car. He threw a discarded shotgun at the killer’s vehicle: “I threw it like an arrow. It shattered his window.” Mr Aziz thinks the killer thought someone had shot at him with a loaded gun. The killer turned. He swore at Mr Aziz. When the window burst it covered the inside of the car with glass. Mr Aziz said the killer “then took off” driving in his car. He then turn right away from the mosque driving through a red traffic light and out into Christchurch suburban streets.

Some minutes later, Police and ambulance officers arrived at Linwood Mosque. Anti-Terrorist armed Police entered the mosque. Inside, Mr Gani said the survivors were ordered to put their hands up above their heads. The mass murder scene was covered in blood. The Police then secured the area. Some victims survived because they were under the bodies of the dead. Police told survivors to gather near a grassed area outside. There, people began weeping for their husbands, wives, parents, children, friends.

THE ARREST:

Seventeen minutes later, two Police officers identified the killer, apparently driving his car. They drove the police car into the killer’s vehicle, ramming it against a curb. Immediately, they disarmed the killer, cuffed him, noticed home made bombs in the vehicle – IEDs (improvised explosive devices). They arrested the man and secured the scene.

The rest of Christchurch was in lock-down, children were kept safe inside their classrooms, hospitals began to prepare for casualties, the city’s streets became eerily quiet, people were locked in to libraries, shops, their homes. Police and armed forces helicopters networked the skies. No one knew if the terrorist attacks were committed by a group of people or a lone gunman.

But back inside and entrances to the two mosques, 50 people were dead – one of the dead was discovered the next day by Police, the body was laying beneath others who had been killed. Scores of others were in hospital fighting for their lives, at least another ten were in a critical condition in intensive care. Pathologists from all over New Zealand and Australia were heading to Christchurch to help with documenting the method of murder of the dead.

Within hours of the killings, Australian media named the alleged killer as an Australian born citizen named Brenton Tarrant, 28 years of age. On Saturday morning The Australian newspaper’s front page read “Australia’s evil export”.

Other media in New Zealand followed with details of the man’s background. Brenton Harrison Tarrant appeared in court the next day charged with one single count of murder. Other charges will follow. His duty lawyer did not seek name suppression nor bail, the lawyer told the judge: “I’m simply seeking remand and a high court next-available-hearing date.” Tarrant stood cuffed, smiling at those in the courtroom, at one point signaling with his fingers a ‘white supremacist’ sign. He will next appear in the Christchurch High Court on April 5.

THE AFTERMATH:

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern later told media: “It was absolutely his [the offender’s) intention to continue with his attack.” PM Ardern said: “Police are working to build a picture of this tragic event. A complex and comprehensive investigation is (now) underway.” To balance the requirement of investigation with the customs of Muslim burials, PM Ardern said liaison officers are with the victims’ loved ones to help “in a way that is consistent with Muslim faith while taking into account these unprecedented circumstances and the obligations to the coroner.”

PM Ardern said, survivors of the massacre had indicated that this attack was not “of the New Zealand that they know”.

One day later, Survivor Shoaib Gani (mentioned above) told media he still could not sleep or eat. The sounds and sights were still vivid in his head: “I still can feel myself lying on the floor waiting for the bullets to hit me.” He said, he will travel back to India to visit family, but he will return to Christchurch: “It’s just a few people, you know. You can’t blame the whole of New Zealand for this… It’s a good country, people are peaceful. Everybody has helped me here. One right wing (person) doesn’t mean everyone is bad. So I can come back here and live and hope nothing like this happens in the future.”

In the hours after the attacks, all around New Zealand, in the cities and in small country areas, Police were stationed and were ready in case others were involved and were preparing further crimes.

Beside the Police officers, people, of all races and religions, began laying flowers at the steps to their local mosques. Messages included read: “Salam Alaikum, Peace be unto you”, and, Aroha nui”, “Peace and love”, “You are one of us”. The outpouring of grief swept the South Pacific nation, and as this piece was written, a mood of support, comfort, reassurance and solidarity with those of Muslim faith was in evidence.

In Australia, Sydney’s landmark Opera House was like a beacon in the night; coloured blue, red, and white – the colours of the New Zealand flag embossed with the silver fern (Ponga) an emblem of Aotearoa New Zealand. Australia’s peoples, like in New Zealand, began laying flowers at the steps of its mosques in a gesture of inclusiveness.

In the aftermath, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has committed to ongoing financial assistance to dependents of those who have died or are injured, and assistance, she said, will be ongoing.

Questions are being leveled as to how a person with hate can enter, live, and purchase weapons in New Zealand while expressing hate toward other cultures and harbouring an intent to kill others.

PM Ardern said: “The guns used in this case appear to have been modified. That is a challenge Police have been facing, and that is a challenge that we will look to address in changing our laws… We need to include the fact that modification of guns which can lead them to become essentially the kinds of weapons we have seen used in this terrorist act.”

When asked how she was coping personally with the tragedy, she said: “I am feeling the exact same emotions that every New Zealander is facing. Yes, I have the additional responsibility and weight of expressing the grief of all New Zealanders and I certainly feel that.”

That responsibility includes ensuring New Zealand’s Police, the nation’s intelligence and security services and “the process around watch-lists, including whether or not our border protections are currently in a status that they should be, and, including our gun laws.”

THE BACKSTORY:

Indeed, New Zealand is part of the so-called ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence network that includes the USA, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Global surveillance is coordinated and prioritised among the Five Eyes member states. While significant resource, technology and sophistication is committed to the Five Eyes intelligence agencies, New Zealanders fear that those who find themselves as targets, or within the scope of intelligence officers, are predominantly of the Muslim faith.

In contrast, the accused killer who allegedly committed the horrific Christchurch mosque attacks, has been active both on social media and the dark web expressing, with an intensifying degree, his ideology of hate and intolerance. It does appear of the highest public interest, certainly from an open source intelligence point of view, to ask questions of why New Zealand’s (and indeed the Five Eyes intelligence network’s) surveillance experts did not detect the expressed evil that had radicalised the heart and mind of the perpetrator of this massacre.

It is also fact, that New Zealand is a comparatively safe and peaceful nation. But within its midst are people and groups fermenting on racially-based hate ideas. Whether it be in isolation or among organised groupings, the threat of racially driven terror crimes exists.

The alleged killer, Brenton Tarrant, has lived among those of New Zealand’s southern city Dunedin for at least two years. It appears he was radicalised around 2010 after his father died and he toured Europe. He wrote about becoming “increasingly disgusted” at immigrant communities. In early 2018, Tarrant joined a Dunedin gun club and began practicing his shooting skills and allegedly planned his attacks.

Regarding Christchurch, while it has a history of overt white racist gangs, at this juncture, it does not appear they were directly involved in this series of crimes.

But this leads to many unanswered questions, including:

• Was the killer a lone mass murderer, a sleeper in a cell of one?
• Were those with whom he communicated and engaged with on the web in extreme white racist ideologies aware of his plans?
• Was Christchurch chosen by the killer for logistical reasons?
• Was it because the city is easier to drive around than Dunedin, Wellington or Auckland?
• Was it because Christchurch has at least two mosques within easy driving distance?
• Were the Bangladesh Cricket team in his scope of attacks?
• Was the killer attempting to incite a violent response from Christchurch’s burgeoning Muslim community, or, expecting a response from the Alt-Right, from white racist groups such as the Right Wing Resistance (RWR), the Fourth Reich, and Christchurch’s skinhead community?

THE FUTURE:

Survivors of Friday 15th’s terrorist attack say they have complained of an increase in racism and expressed hate in recent times. They say, their concerns have not been taken seriously. These are the concerns that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has committed to listen to, has committed to represent, and, as the prime advocate for her country’s peoples, to act on to ensure cracks in New Zealand’s border, security and intelligence apparatus are corrected.

And, what of New Zealand’s social culture? How will it be affected? That will be determined by the actions of each individual person, each community, town and city and how as a nation New Zealand redefines “The Kiwi Way”.

Members of New Zealand’s media will also need to act responsibly. It is fair to say some have a reputation for argument that verges on alt-right intolerance, for example, on Twitter only two days after the mass murders, a prominent radio journalist, who is employed by one of New Zealand’s largest networks, tweeted: “28 years on an [sic] we still haven’t stopped madmen getting guns. #ChChMosque… [Replying to @Politikwebsite] And the neo nationalist right are the result of the virtue signaling exclusionary left.”

Perhaps such examples are out of step with New Zealand’s population. But such attitudes do create a dialogue of justification for those who harbour intolerance. However, if the outpouring of love and compassion continues to bind rather than divide, then perhaps New Zealand has received, as they say, ‘a wake-up call’, where racial intolerance and extreme ideologies have no place among peoples of all kinds, Maori and Pakeha, of all religions, political persuasions and creeds.

One thing is certain; to stamp out the evil of hate extremism, New Zealanders will pay a price that will be charged against the Kiwi lifestyle. Personal liberties of freedom, of expression and privacy will certainly be eroded further as this nation of the South Pacific grapples with how to keep its peoples safe. The means of how to achieve relative safety will be hotly debated, but it is a necessary juncture in this nation’s history, a moment when we all must confront and challenge ourselves so that people of innocence, people like little three year old Mucaad Ibrahim, can go about their days in trust, in peace, in joyful purpose and achieve their deserved potential. Anything less is a second killing for the victims of Friday 15, New Zealand’s darkest hour.

By Victor Mambor in Jayapura

Five civilians in Timika have reportedly been arrested by the newly reactivated military counter-terrorism unit for “aspiring” to West Papuan independence.

“At 10pm on Saturday June 9, Orpa Wanjomal (40) and his stepchild Polce Sugumol (31) were arrested at their home in the SP 2 [housing unit] in Timika,” United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) spokesperson Jakob Rumbiak said yesterday.

“Five hours later, at 3am in the morning, on Sunday June 10, Titus Kwalik was arrested at the SP 10.

“At the same time Julianus Dekme (31) and Alosius Ogolmagai (49) were arrested at Julianus’ house at the SP 6. The five civilians were arrested for aspiring to Papuan independence.”

Rumbiak said that the Joint Special Operations Command (Koopssusgab) was involved in the arrests. The Koopssusgab is a joint military counter-terrorism unit, which was recently reactivated in concert with revisions to the Anti-Terrorism Law, and is under the direct authority of Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo.

Commando unit
The commando unit, according to House of Representatives (DPR) Commission I chairperson Abdul Kharis Almasyhari, was formed to assist in dealing with terrorism under certain conditions if the national police request assistance.

-Partners-

According to Almasyhari, under the revisions to the 2003 Anti-Terrorism Law, which were enacted on May 25, there are additional regulations which make it more comprehensive, including the possibility of involving the TNI (Indonesian military) under certain conditions.

“However the Koopssusgab apparently can’t be formed yet because they don’t have a core budget yet,” said Almasyhari.

Nevertheless, the ULMWP is sure that the arrests were carried out by Koopssusgab.

“The use of the special military anti-terrorist force against West Papuan civilians is irresponsible and morally wrong”, said Rumbiak.

The West Papuan people were not terrorists, and had never carried out terrorist acts, unlike Indonesian terrorists or extremists.

The West Papuan people’s right to self-determination is guaranteed under the Indonesian Constitution, the United Nations Human Rights Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960), the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights (2007) and UN General Assembly Resolution 1752 Chapters XVII and XII.

Tabloid Jubi has attempted to contact Mimika District Police Chief Assistant Superintendent Agung Marlianto via WhatsApp for clarification of the alleged arrests. As of posting this article however, Marlianto has not responded.

Translated by James Balowski for the Indoleft News Service. The original title of the article was “ULMWP: 5 warga sipil Timika ditangkap karena aspirasi Papua Merdeka”. Victor Mambor is editor of Tabloid Jubi.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Marguerite Afra Sapiie and Nurul Fitri Ramadhani in Jakarta

Indonesia’s Presidential Chief of Staff Moeldoko has claimed that President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo had expressed his consent to bringing back to life the suspended military Joint Special Operations Command (Koopsusgab) tasked with countering terrorism.

The team, which included and will again include personnel of the Army’s Special Forces (Kopassus), the Navy’s Denjaka squad and the Air Force’s Bravo 90 special force, would be put on standby and be ready to be mobilised at any time when terror threats emerged, Moeldoko said.

“This joint force was well trained and prepared in terms of its capacity, and it could be deployed anywhere on the country’s soil as fast as possible […]. Its role would be to assist the National Police,” Moeldoko said.

READ MORE: Jokowi to issue perppu if House fails to revise terror law

His statement has followed a recent string of terrorist attacks that has thrust Indonesia into a state of paranoia.

The joint force was first established under Moeldoko when he served as the Indonesian Military (TNI) commander in 2015. The special command’s operations, however, were suspended under the leadership of Moeldoko’s successor, retired General Gatot Nurmantyo.

-Partners-

Further tasks of the special command would be discussed between TNI commander Air Chief Marshal Hadi Tjahjanto and National Police chief General Tito Karnavian, with the latter to have the final say on whether it needed the assistance of the TNI’s special team or not, Moeldoko said.

“This operation must be carried out for preventive purposes, so that the public can feel safe […]. We [the security apparatus] are ready to face any kind of situation, so people should put their trust in us and not worry,” he said.

Planned amendment
The revitalisation of the joint force did not require any new regulations, Moeldoko said, adding that the details about the command’s tasks would be adjusted with the planned amendment to the 2003 Terrorism Law.

The announcement came as the House of Representatives and the government began to clear up contentious articles that had caused deadlock in the deliberation of the Terrorism Law revision, including the legal definition of terrorism and the military’s level of involvement in counterterrorism operations.

A greater level of involvement has stirred debate among experts and human rights activists.

Seven ruling parties and the government had agreed on a definition of terrorism that included acts that had “political and ideological motives and threaten national security”, United Development Party (PPP) lawmaker Arsul Sani said.

More leeway
It is widely believed that such a definition would provide leeway for greater involvement of the TNI in counterterrorism efforts.

As the government and the lawmakers appear to be on the same page now, observers expect the bill to be passed into law in the near future.

Jokowi has recently said he would issue a regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) on the Terrorism Law if the House failed to conclude deliberations on the bill by June.

Members of a committee tasked with deliberating the bill said it was the leading opposition Gerindra Party and the Democratic Party, both political parties with strong military influence, that had demanded the inclusion of the contentious provisions.

“We support [the terrorism bill],” Gerindra chairman Prabowo Subianto said during his visit to the House.

Deliberation of the bill is believed to have been stalled mainly because of a tug-of-war between the TNI and the police, which led to division among political parties factions into pro-TNI and pro-police camps.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Riani Sanusi Putri in Jakarta

Indonesia’s Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (KontraS) has demanded police investigate the cause of death of terrorist suspect Muhammad Jefri in Indramayu.

This is deemed important since the information about his death is unclear and appears to involve a violation of law.

“The case of Muhamad Jefri or MJ is under the authority of National Police’s counterterrorism squad Densus 88,” KontraS coordinator Yati Indriyani said at the weekend.

Jefri was arrested by Densus 88 since he was allegedly involved in a number of terrorism cases.

However, his family mentioned that his arrest was not under an official warrant. Jefri was in good health when the police took him in.

The news of his death was delivered by the police on February 15, 2018, yet he died a week prior. Yati said that this kind of treatment of terrorist suspects would spark controversy since there was no transparency and the authorities neglected human rights (HAM) parameters and the law.

“It is concerned that this will trigger, create or flourish other links of terrorist acts,” Yati said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Dr Johan Lidberg in Melbourne

Australia is a world leader in passing the most amendments to existing and new anti-terror and security laws in the liberal democratic world. Since September 11, 2001, it has passed 54 laws.

The latest suggested addition is the Turnbull government’s crackdown on foreign interference. The bill has been heavily criticised by Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and major media organisations for being too heavy-handed and far-reaching in the limits it would place on freedom of expression and several other civil liberties.

The government’s own intelligence watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, argues the bill is so widely worded that its own staff could break the law for handling documents they need to access to do their job.

READ MORE: New foreign interference laws will compound risks to whistleblowers and journalists

A case in point is whether the ABC’s publication of confidential and secret cabinet documents would be in breach of the proposed bill. Two filing cabinets full of thousands of confidential cabinet documents were given to the ABC by a source who, astonishingly, had bought them for small change at an op-shop in Canberra.

The ABC made an assessment and chose to publish a very limited number of the documents it deemed in the public interest. The ABC has so far clearly acted responsibly, and no documents that could harm Australia’s national security were in the first publication.

-Partners-

Some of the published documents are embarrassing for both the current and former Coalition and Labor governments, but that should not stop publication – rather, the opposite.

What the bill would mean
The foreign interference bill, in its current form, suggests it should be criminal for anyone to “receive” and “handle” certain national security information. It would seem that by just receiving the filing cabinets and assessing what to publish, the ABC staff would be in breach of the provisions suggested in the bill.

Furthermore, this makes an already heavy-handed whistleblower regime from an international perspective even more draconian. It is sure to lose Australia several places on the Press Freedom Index if implemented as suggested.

The bill is an overreach in many respects. But one of the worst aspects, from a transparency and accountability point of view, is that it seeks to extend the draconian Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

Section 70 makes it a crime, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison, for public servants to communicate or supply information to anyone outside government without permission. The ABC’s publication of the cabinet files clearly illustrates that media organisations with ethical and thorough editorial polices are perfectly capable of assessing what to publish.

The bigger picture is that the current bill is part of a pattern that started after the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001.

In our forthcoming book, In The Name of Security – Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism, my colleagues and I assess how the anti-terror laws and mass surveillance technologies in the Five Eyes countries has impacted on in-depth public interest journalism. We also compare the Five Eyes with several BRICS countries and the situation in the European Union.

Fear-driven security
Our main conclusions are that the current fear-driven security environment has made it much harder for investigative journalists to hold governments and security agencies to account. This is partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.

Add to this the truly awesome powers of mass surveillance making it increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to grant anonymity to sources that require it for their own safety, and you end up with a very complex journalist-source situation.

Another important factor in Australia and the UK is that all national security agencies are exempt from Freedom of Information laws. This makes it virtually impossible to independently acquire information from the security branch of government.

The balance between national security and transparency is complex. As citizens, we want to feel safe and know what is being done to keep us safe. In our book, we have labelled this the “trust us” dilemma, meaning governments argue they can’t disclose what they are doing security-wise, lest the “bad guys” find out.

That leaves us needing to trust the government’s security actions and policies. But the problem is, how can we as citizens decide if we trust the government if we don’t have the information on which to base this decision?

There is no easy answer to this question. Political philosopher Giorgio Agamben takes our reasoning one step further when he argues that the liberal democratic world has been in a “state of exception” since September 11. This has granted powers to security agencies that are creeping increasingly closer to those of the totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s.

‘Other’ enemy
Agamben traces various states of exception all the way back to Roman times. The pattern is similar through history: governments point to an “other” – often a hard-to-define enemy – as a reason for increased powers to the security apparatus. They are convinced they are doing the right thing.

The problem is that if we don’t roll back the strengthened security laws in times of lower threat, we start from a high level next time we enter a “state of exception”. This in turn can lead to a never-ending war on real or perceived threats where our cherished democratic civil liberties become part of the collateral damage.

If we allow the “state of exception” to become permanent, we risk allowing the terrorists to win.

Dr Johan Lidberg is an associate professor in the School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. This article was first published by The Conversation on a Creative Commons licence and is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz