As I was having breakfast in my Christchurch suburban dining room on Monday morning, I heard a loud but indeterminate noise.

I actually thought it was a quake, but as there was no shaking, I assumed it came from the noisy construction site two doors away. So, I ignored it and carried on reading the newspaper over breakfast.

I then had a sense that somebody was nearby. Upon looking up I was surprised (to put it very mildly) to see two cops, with rifles at the ready, peering through the windows on the back door.

I thought: “This is exciting. Why spend good money to see Muru [a new movie based on the 2007 Tūhoe police raids] when you can get it delivered to your doorstep, free of charge” (but these cops didn’t have the ninja uniforms as seen in the movie).

I opened the door. Two cops with rifles rapidly became four cops with rifles facing me (the next door neighbour later told me he saw three cop cars in the street). It’s worth noting that although they all had a gun, none of them was wearing a mask.

“Can I help you?,” I asked. The one in charge said they were looking for Mr So and So. I replied that I’d never heard of him and they had the wrong address.

But wait, there’s more. The cop then said: “Mr So and So is a gang member. He was bailed to this address, he is under curfew at this address, and now he’s wanted.”

Don’t know any gang members
I reiterated that I’d never heard of this fellow, let alone provided him with a bail address (I don’t know any gang members. Well, not since I worked at the Railways decades ago).

I said that Mr Gangster had pulled a shrewdy on the judge, and voluntarily showed the cop written proof of my ID and ownership of the property (the power bill was the closest document to hand). I told them that I had owned and occupied this house for 40 years and had never heard of the fellow throughout that time.

It was all very chatty and polite. The cops could obviously see that their wanted man had pulled a swifty, plus I am a property-owning old Pākehā. They didn’t point their guns at me, nor did they ask to come inside (and I didn’t invite them). They took my word that my sleeping wife was the only other person in the house.

I asked if they were responsible for the loud noise I’d heard, and they said that was them pounding on the front door (plus the bedroom window, apparently). I told them that there also been pounding on the front door and bedroom window after dark on the previous Friday night, which I’d chosen to ignore (assuming it to be somebody at the wrong address).

The cop said it was probably police doing a bail curfew check.

The lead cop wrote a statement in his notebook and asked me to sign it, saying that I’d owned and occupied the place for 40 years, did not know the fellow they were seeking, and had not given him permission to use it as a bail address. Then they left.

Throughout the decades I’ve had plenty of cops on various doorsteps. But never with weapons, let alone weapons drawn. The only times I’ve been confronted by men in uniforms with rifles have been in places like the Philippines and Belfast.

Here’s the punchline. One of the cops said: “As I was coming up the drive, I was thinking, ‘this doesn’t look like a gang house’.” When it comes time to sell here, I must remember to instruct the real estate agent to highlight that as its unique selling point.

A flying start to the week.

Murray Horton is a political activist, advocate and researcher. He is organiser of the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (Cafca) and he has been an advocate of a range of progressive causes for the past five decades. Horton occasionally contributes articles for Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Pacific Elders’ Voice has expressed deep concern about reports of deteriorating human rights in West Papua and has appealed to Indonesia to allow the proposed UN high commissioner’s visit there before the Bali G20 meeting in November.

A statement from the PEV says the reports suggest an “increased number of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and the internal displacement of Melanesian Papuans”.

The Pacific Elders said that they recalled the Pacific Island Forum Leaders’ Communique made in Tuvalu in 2019 which welcomed an invitation by Indonesia for a mission to West Papua by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

“The communique strongly encouraged both sides to finalise the timing of the visit and for an evidence-based, informed report on the situation be provided before next Pacific Island Forum Leaders meeting in 2020,” the statement said.

“Despite such undertaking, we understand that the Indonesian government has not allowed UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua.

“We find this unacceptable and believe that such behaviour can only exacerbate the tensions in the region.”

The Pacific Elders said Indonesia must “take responsibility for its actions and abuses and make amends for the harm” caused to the Indigenous people of West Papua.

The statement said the elders urgently called for the Indonesian government to allow the UN High Commission for Human Rights to visit West Papua and to prepare a report for the Human Rights Council.

“We call on all members of the Human Rights Council to pass a resolution condemning the current human rights abuses in West Papua,” the statement said.

“We further call on the Human Rights Council to clearly identify the human rights abuses in Indonesia’s Universal Periodic Review and to identify clear steps to rectify the abuses that are taking place.

“We further note that the next G20 Heads of State and Government Summit will take place [on November 15-16] in Bali. We call on all G20 member countries to ensure that a visit by the UN High Commission for Human Rights is allowed to take place before this meeting and that the HCHR is able to prepare a report on her findings for consideration by the G20.

“We believe that no G20 Head of State and Government should attend the meeting without a clear understanding of the human rights situation in West Papua” .

Pacific Elders’ Voice is an independent alliance of Pacific elders whose purpose is to draw on their collective experience and wisdom to provide thought leadership, perspectives, and guidance that strengthens Pacific resilience.

They include former Marshall Islands president Hilde Heine, former Palau president Tommy Remengesau, former Kiribati president Anote Tong, former Tuvalu prime minister Enele Sopoaga, former Pacific Island Forum Secretariat secretary-general Dame Meg Taylor, former Guam University president Robert Underwood, former Fiji ambassador Kaliopate Tavola, and former University of the South Pacific professor Konai Helu Thaman.

‘State terrorism’ over special autonomy
Meanwhile, United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP) interim president Benny Wenda has detailed “disturbing reports” of increased militarisation and state terrorism in a recent statement about the region.

“Our people have been taking to the streets to show their rejection of Indonesia’s plan to divide us further by the creation of 7 provinces and to demonstrate against the imposition of ‘special autonomy’,” Wenda said.

“Peaceful protestors in Nabire and Jayapura have been met with increasing brutality, with water cannons and tear gas used against them and fully armed police firing indiscriminately at protesters and civilians alike.

“This is state terrorism. Indonesia is trying to use their full military might to impose their will onto West Papuans, to force acceptance of ‘special autonomy’.

The pattern of increased militarisation and state repression over the past few years had been clear, with an alarming escalation in violence, said Wenda.

Last month two protesters were shot dead in Yahukimo Regency for peacefully demonstrating against the expansion of provinces.

“History is repeating itself and we are witnessing a second Act of No Choice. West Papuans are being forced to relive this trauma on a daily basis,” said Wenda.

“The same methods of oppression were used in 1969, with thousands of troops harassing, intimidating and killing any West Papuans who spoke out for independence.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinean police have made a startling revelation that firearms for the National Elections security operations in June have yet to be purchased.

Deputy Police Commissioner Anton Billie says the firearms might not be procured and received by the time the election writs are issued on April 28 when nominations and campaigns start in earnest.

“We haven’t purchased anything yet. I’ve been told that they are doing it (police procurement team) but they need time,” Billie said yesterday.

He said the normal process for procurement of ammunition and guns could take about six to eight months to organise because important procurement protocols that needed to be followed.

Billie believes, however, police will manage with the currently available stock until the new procurement arrives.

A senior employee of the Police Department, who requested anonymity, said there were strict procurement protocols in place. However, due to the urgency the police procurement team had come up with measures to bypass some of these procedures.

The source said this situation would not have come about had the funds for the purchase of the firearms been released in November or December last year.

Funding needed last year
“We were supposed to get the funding last year but because we got it this year in February, the funding delayed everything,” he said.

“It normally takes a long time to procure.

“To get the procurement for those major expenditures, like uniforms and guns and ammunitions, we don’t have the time to do that procurement.”

The issue is further complicated because the procurement committee has not approved the police procurement orders.

Items yet to be purchased include guns, ammunitions, and uniforms.

The three-week election is due to begin a week early on June 18.

Claudia Tally is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Police Commissioner Andrew Coster announced today that Armed Response Teams will not be part of the New Zealand policing model in the future.

A trial of the teams of police carrying firearms (ARTs) were launched in Counties Manukau, Waikato and Canterbury last year and ended in April.

In recent days, mass protests across New Zealand against police brutality – sparked by the killing of African-American George Floyd in the US on May 25 – have renewed opposition to armed police and the response teams specifically.

READ MORE: Democrats to unveil sweeping police reforms in US in wake of Black Lives Matter protests

Commissioner Coster said the decision to scrap the teams was based on preliminary findings from the trial evaluation – which is yet to be completed – feedback from the public, and consultation with community forum groups.

“It is clear to me that these response teams do not align with the style of policing that New Zealanders expect,” Coster said.

“We have listened carefully to that feedback and I have made the decision these teams will not be a part of our policing model in the future,” he said.

“As part of this, I want to reiterate that I am committed to New Zealand Police remaining a generally unarmed police service.”

Valued community relationships
Commissioner Coster said police valued their relationships with the various communities they served, and this meant working with them to find solutions that worked for both.

“How the public feels is important – we police with the consent of the public, and that is a privilege,” Coster said.

The trial aimed to have specialist police personnel ready to deploy and support frontline staff in critical or high risk incidents.

“We can only keep New Zealanders safe if we can keep our staff safe too,” he said.

“That is why police has invested in the new body armour system, we have strengthened training, and given our officers more tools and tactical options.”

Police were looking into “broad tactical capability” to ensure critical response options remained fit for purpose, he said.

“We will still complete the evaluation into ARTs and that will now inform the wider tactical capability work programme.”

Any further options arising from this would undergo consultation with communities, Coster said.

Opposition to trials
There had been widespread opposition to the trials, including a Waitangi Tribunal claim being filed by justice advocates arguing the Crown breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi by failing to work in partnership with, consult, or even inform Māori about the trial.

Māori Associate Professor of Law Dr Khylee Quince said the new Police Commissioner had clearly “read the room” in deciding to scrap ARTs.

She said Māori and Pasifika communities were already at the receiving end of a disproportionate amount of police force and adding guns to the mix would have only led to a death.

“It’s important we have a police force that not only the public trusts but that commits to the kind of policing we want in New Zealand.

“And we’ve had a clear public message that people do not want routine arming or militarisation of New Zealand police.”

She said if the ARTs had been rolled out as a permanent fixture it would have only been a matter of time before someone was killed.

‘Someone was going to get harmed’
“I don’t buy the fact that the police only drew their firearms five times. At some stage someone was going to harmed.

“I think the fact that the trial was only six months is the only reason there wasn’t a fatality in that time.”

Last week, Labour Māori Caucus said they had met with Police Minister Stuart Nash and made their views opposing the general arming of the police force very clear.

“While the decision to deploy the ART trial was independently made by the then commissioner of police, and not a government initiative, we as a caucus acknowledge the general feeling of lack of consultation about the trial that exists – especially within Māori,” Labour Māori caucus co-chair Willie Jackson said.

A survey on on the ARTs found 85 percent of participants did not support the trial.

Justice reform advocate Laura O’Connell Rapira said 91 percent of people surveyed were less likely to call the police in family violence situations if they knew the police had guns.

‘Better off’ without armed police
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said she welcomed the decision and communities were “better off” without ARTs.

“This is something to celebrate. We commend the New Zealand Police for listening to the public outcry during and after the ART trials. They have listened to the community, and made the right call,” Davidson said.

“This decision today reinforces the need for people to make their voices heard. We know that people of colour, in particular black and brown communities, do not feel protected with armed police on patrol.”

However, Davidson said there were still systemic problems police needed to address.

“There is still work to do in terms of ending systemic discrimination and systemic racism within the police, it has been well established that is still continuing and that’s why the further arming of police was heading in the wrong direction,” she said.

She said more holistic solutions were needed instead to keep communities safe, such as mental health and youth support.

The party’s justice spokesperson, Golriz Ghahraman, said the move was a step “against the American-style militarisation” of the police force.

National Party police spokesperson, Brett Hudson also agreed that the commissioner made the right choice, saying that firearms were already available to police when needed for public safety.

• This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.
• If you have symptoms of the coronavirus, call the NZ Covid-19 Healthline on 0800 358 5453 (+64 9 358 5453 for international SIMs) or call your GP – don’t show up at a medical centre.
• Follow RNZ’s coronavirus newsfeed

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 Pebriansyah Ariefana in Surabaya

Indonesian police have revealed that police and military officers raided a Papuan student dormitory in the East Java provincial capital of Surabaya in Indonesia at the weekend because the students were allegedly planning to screen the documentary film Bloody Biak (Biak Berdarah).

Tambaksari Sectoral Police Chief Police Commander Prayitno claimed that security personnel went to the Papuan student dormitory in order to prevent an incident such as one that occurred in Malang earlier in the week from happening in Surabaya.

“[According] to information we received, they announced on social media that they would show the film Bloody Biak. So we went to the dormitory to anticipate this,” he said.

However, the planned screening of the film Bloody Biak on Friday was cancelled, and replaced by a screening of World Football Cup matches.

“If the discussion had still gone ahead. Apparently the film Bloody Biak [was to be screened] which tells the story of the massacre of Papuan people. I don’t know if this was true or not”, he said.

A joint operation by hundreds of TNI (Indonesian military), police and Public Order Agency officers (Satpol PP) raided the Papuan student dormitory located on Jl. Kalasan No. 10 Surabaya on Friday.

-Partners-

The dormitory is home to hundreds of students and Papuan alumni from various tertiary education institutions in Surabaya.

Security personnel sealed off the Papuan student dormitory because of suspicions that there would be “hidden activities”.

Inside the dormitory, they were to hold a discussion and wanted to screen the film Bloody Biak that evening.

Background
On July 6, 1998, scores of people in Biak Island’s main town were wounded, arrested or killed while staging a peaceful demonstration calling for independence from Indonesia.

Earlier last week on July 1, police violently closed down a discussion by West Papuan students at Brawijaya University in the East Java city of Malang marking the 47th anniversary of the proclamation of independence in 1971 by the Free West Papua Movement.

Police claimed that they closed own the discussion following complaints from local people.

Translated from the Suara.com story by James Balowski for the Indoleft News Service. The original title of the article was “Film Biak Berdarah, Alasan Polisi Kepung Asrama Papua di Surabaya”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

Three suspected members of an armed criminal gang in Papua New Guinea’s second city of Lae are dead following a botched armed robbery,  the PNG Post-Courier reports.

One of the gang members is lucky to be alive and is being treated at the Angau Memorial Hospital following a shoot-out with police at Downtown Lae yesterday morning.

Franco Nebas and Bradley Mariori report that the wounded included a police officer who suffered pellet wounds and the Chinese owner of the shop during the attempted hold-up at the city’s shopping centre.

Lae police metropolitan commander Chief Superintendent Anthony Wagambie Jr said the police chased the criminals from downtown, through Airways Avenue, on to China Town, and Bumbu Bridge, ending up at Busurum compound.

Wagambie said that in the running gun battle, police killed three armed men and wounded one on the left leg.

Loop PNG website’s Imelda Wavik reports that the suspects opened fire on police while travelling at high speed.

-Partners-

“A bullet penetrated the windscreen of a pursuing police vehicle and wednt out the back window, while another bullet hit the roof of the vehicle,” she reported.

“A [policeman] on board sustained pellet wounds to his left arm.

“Police could not immediately open fire for fear of injuring bystanders.”

Five armed men
Chief Superintendent Wagambie said the robbery took place about 9.30am when five armed men held up one of the owners of an Asian-owned shop at Downtown Lae, the Post-Courier said.

A police traffic unit on patrol near the scene was alerted when a shot was fired by the criminals at the security guards while the robbery was in progress.

The traffic unit alerted other units to block off escape routes but the criminals managed to drive through the road blocks, firing at the police while travelling at high speed, the Post-Courier said.

Wagambie said that a police vehicle in pursuit was shot at, the bullet penetrated the windscreen and wounded a police officer.

“Police could not return fire immediately because of the large number of people walking on the road as they have been instructed not to endanger the lives of public in such instances,” he said.

Meanwhile the escaping suspects abandoned the vehicle at Busurum Compound and escaped on foot while still firing at the police.

Wagambie said a lone special response unit member who sighted the suspects at the back of Malahang Technical College was fired upon and was forced to engage in a shoot-out with the four suspects.

He said from the shoot-out they were pushed further into the area between Sipaia and Hanta Compound.

Factory and home-made guns
Wagambie said they managed to retrieve two factory-made guns and a home-made gun and live ammunition in the vehicle used in the robbery.

“We believe there was also a high-powered rifle used, judging from the distance and impact the police vehicle received when fired upon by the suspects.

“I am warning criminal gangs in Lae, not to try such daring robberies. The response time for police now is fast. The criminals were quite daring to shoot at police, not only in one instance, but on more than seven encounters with police on vehicle pursuits and on foot.

“I could have lost a couple of good policemen … but thank God for his protection.

“A lot of members and the public could have been injured in the reckless shooting carried out by the escaping gang. Our police investigators are still working on the case.

“I lastly thank all of the police personnel in Lae who all did their part by backing up each other,” Wagambie said.

The Post-Courier reports that in a related incident, quick intervention by police stopped another attempted robbery near Kumalu wet crossing.

Gunshots were exchanged between police and the criminals, Bulolo police station commander Leo Kaikas said that the suspects were eventually caught arrested and locked up at Mumeng police station.

Franco Nebas and Bradley Mariori are PNG Post-Courier reporters and Imelda Wavik reports for Loop PNG.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Sixteen-year-old Ahed Tamimi was back in court last Thursday, with the judge ruling for the third time that her detention be extended – this time for another five days.

Over the past week and a half, Ahed has been shuffled between numerous Israeli prisons and police stations. She has been held in cold isolation cells with cameras pointed at her 24 hours a day.

Repeatedly, without a parent or lawyer present, they have attempted to interrogate her. The reasoning for the judge’s rulings to extend her detention is that she “poses a risk” to the military and the Israeli government’s case against her.

Israel is right that Ahed Tamimi poses a risk. But it isn’t a risk to one of the most heavily armed and advanced militaries in the world or to the legal case being built against her.

The risk she poses is in her refusal to submit to the Israeli demand that Palestinians acquiesce to their own occupation.

Israeli logic is that Palestinians should cooperate with their own oppression. They should move quietly through the checkpoints, open their bags, not look their occupiers in the eye and not challenge or protest the theft of their lands, resources and freedoms.

Israeli logic is that if they don’t like it, they can leave. Actually, they would strongly prefer that Palestinians leave. The strategy is to make life so unbearable for Palestinians, that they leave willingly. This even has a name: “voluntary transfer.”

Regular resistance
Since Ahed was a young child, she and her family have engaged in active resistance to Israel’s occupation. From 2013 up until the present, they have staged regular demonstrations against the military and the nearby settlers who have taken over their lands and water spring.

The protests are met with tear gas, rubber bullets, skunk water and live ammunition.

In 2012, Ahed’s father was declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International. In 2013, her uncle was killed by a tear gas canister shot to the head. In 2014, her mother was almost permanently disabled when she was shot in the leg with a .22 caliber bullet.

In 2015, a video of Ahed preventing her younger brother from being arrested went viral. Her cousins and her older brother have spent time in Israeli prisons.

On Friday, December 15, during a protest of President Trump’s announcement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Ahed’s 14-year-old cousin Mohammed Tamimi was shot in the face with a rubber bullet. He was taken to the hospital where he required surgery and a was placed in a medically induced coma.

A few hours later, when armed soldiers came to Ahed’s home demanding to enter, she pushed back. She slapped and kicked them, and screamed that they could not come in.

Shenila Khoja-Moolji wrote in Aljazeera about the stark contrast between the support Malala Yousafzai received after being shot in the head by the Taliban and the silence on Ahed’s case by feminist and political leaders.

Big difference
Granted, there is a big difference between being shot on the way to school and arrested after slapping a soldier.

Malala was invited to meet with President Barack Obama. She was championed by Senator Hillary Clinton and listed as one of the 100 most influential people in Time magazine.

In 2013 and 2014, Malala was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and in 2014, she won. In contrast, while Ahed’s story has received some coverage in the news, she has yet to find state actors or prominent influencers to champion her cause.

While the West seems mostly indifferent to Ahed’s plight, Israel is hell-bent on hating the girl.

Israeli Education Minister Neftali Bennett called for Ahed and her family to “spend the rest of their lives in prison.”

Minister of Defence Avigdor Liberman said she and her family should “get what they deserve,” and prominent Israeli journalist Ben Caspit said that Israel should “exact a price at some other opportunity, in the dark, without witnesses and cameras”.

Caspit afterwards tried to backpedal his threat, saying his words had been taken out of context. But as the #MeToo movement has made clear, denying one’s intentions does not undo or excuse them.

Marginalised voices
As the #MeToo movement continues to build and uplift more marginalised voices, Ahed’s voice is not recognised when she could be regarded as a pillar in the movement.

Ahed is revoking her consent for Israel’s brutal occupation. She refuses to give her consent to Israeli forces that invade her family’s home in yet another vicious, meritless night raid. She confronts her aggressors and stands up to the violent system of power that keeps perpetuating this cycle of abuse against Palestinians.

In the same way survivors of sexual assault and rape are silenced, doubted and blamed for the crimes committed against them, Ahed is facing the same backlash from her aggressors.

Israel is working overtime to discredit her and erase her voice, with the hope that people will believe their fabrications over her truth. Now is the time for voices in the #MeToo to call for her release and help draw the parallels.

Shenila Khoja-Moolji explains the reasons for such lack of support for Ahed as being due to acceptance of state violence, Western society’s selective humanitarianism and the political, rather than individual nature of Ahed’s feminism.

These are all valid and important explanations. But support for Ahed is also a condemnation of the state of Israel. It is a condemnation of Israel’s military court system which allows children to be held in isolation and denied access to their parents during interrogation.

It is a condemnation of Israel’s settlement enterprise and continued presence on Palestinian land. To support Ahed is to rebuke Israel’s assertion that Palestinians must comply with their occupiers, that they must open the doors for the soldiers who enter their homes.

Internal power
Certainly their 16-year-old girls must not raise an arm to soldiers. It is one thing to support Malala for taking on the Taliban, but quite another to support Ahed as she takes on Israel’s strongest allies and the purported only democracy in the Middle East.

Not all feminist leaders are afraid to express support for Ahed. CodePink is hosting a petition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, demanding Ahed’s release. We, along with others, like Jewish Voice for Peace, are asking Members of Congress to sign onto Representative Betty McCollum’s legislation to require that US aid to Israel not go to the abuse and detention of Palestinian children.

Ahed is a threat to Israel’s entire system of power. She is not only aware of her own internal power, she is completely unafraid of her aggressors.

This is the same bravery required for sexual assault survivors to tell their stories and hold their accusers responsible. It is the essence of the struggle for women’s rights and why feminism is so incompatible with militarism.

For Ahed to be successful in her fight for the liberation of her people, we first need her to be released from jail. To make this happen, we need all people who call themselves feminists and human rights advocates to say #FreeAhed.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz