A stoush between the Chief Human Rights Commissioner and a Jewish community leader has flared up following a showdown at Parliament.

Appearing before a parliamentary select committee today, Dr Stephen Rainbow was asked about his recent apology for incorrect comments he made about Muslims earlier this year.

“If my language has been injudicious . . .  then I have apologised for that,” he told MPs.

“I’ve apologised publicly. I’ve apologised privately. I’ve met with FIANZ [The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand] to hear their concerns and to apologise to them, both in person and publicly, and I hold to that apology.”

The apology relates to a meeting he had with Jewish community leader Philippa Yasbek, from the anti-Zionist Jewish groups Alternative Jewish Voices and Dayenu, in February.

Yasbek said Rainbow claimed during the meeting that the Security Intelligence Services (SIS) threat assessment found Muslims posed a greater threat to the Jewish community in New Zealand than white supremacists.

In fact, the report states “white identity-motivated violent extremism [W-IMVE] remains the dominant identity-motivated violent extremism ideology in New Zealand”.

Rainbow changed his position
Rainbow told the committee he had since changed his position after receiving new information.

He said was disappointed he had “allowed [his] words to create a perception there was a prejudice there” and he would do everything in his power to repair his relationship with the Muslim community.

“Please be assured that I take this as a learning, and I will be far more measured with my comments in future.”

But Rainbow disputed another of Yasbek’s assertions that he had also raised the supposed antisemitism of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“It’s going to be really unhelpful if I get into a he-said-she-said, but I did not say the comments that were attributed to me about that. I do not believe that,” Rainbow said.

“I emphatically deny that I said that.”

‘It definitely stuck in my mind’ – Jewish community leader
Yasbek, who called for Rainbow’s resignation yesterday, was watching the select committee hearing from the back of the room.

Speaking to reporters afterwards, Yasbek said she was certain Rainbow had made the comments about Afghan refugees.

“It was particularly memorable because it was so specific and he said that he was concerned about the risk of anti-semitism in the community of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“It’s very specific. It’s not a sort of detail that one is likely to make up, and it definitely stuck in my mind.”

Yasbek said the race relations commissioner and two Human Rights Commission staff members were also in the room and should be interviewed to corroborate what happened.

“There were multiple witnesses. I am concerned that he has impugned my integrity in that way which is why there should be an independent investigation of this matter.”

Raised reported comments
Speaking to RNZ later, FIANZ chairman Abdur Razzaq said he raised the commissioner’s reported comments about Afghan refugees when he met with Rainbow several weeks ago.

“I raised it at the meeting with him and he did not correct me. At my meeting there were other members of the Human Rights Commission. He did not say he didn’t [say that].”

Razzaq said it was up to the justice minister as to whether or not Rainbow was fit for the role.

“When you hear statements like this, like ‘greatest threat’, he has forgotten it was precisely this kind of Islamophobic sentiment which gave rise to the terrorist of March 15, rise to the right-wing extremist terrorists to take action and they justify it with these kinds of statements.”

“[The commissioner] calls himself an academic, a student of history. Where is his lessons learned on this aspect? To pick a Muslim community by name… he has to really genuinely look at himself as to what he is doing and what he is saying.”

Minister backs Rainbow: ‘Doing his best’
Speaking at Parliament following the hearing, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he backed Rainbow and believed the commissioner would learn from the experience.

“The new commissioner is doing his best. By his own admission he didn’t express himself well. He has apologised and he will be learning from that experience, and it is my expectation that he will be very careful in the way that he communicates in the future.”

Goldsmith said he stood by his appointment of Rainbow, despite the independent panel tasked with leading the process taking a different view.

“There’s a range of opinions on that. The advice that I had originally from the group was a real focus on legal skills, and I thought actually equally important was the ability to communicate ideas effectively.”

Speaking in Christchurch on Thursday afternoon, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Rainbow had got it “totally wrong” and it was appropriate he had apologised.

“He completely and quite wrongfully mischaracterised a New Zealand SIS report talking about threats to the Jewish community and he was wrong about that.

“He has subsequently apologised about that but equally Minister Goldsmith has or is talking to him about those comments as well.”

‘Not elabiorating further’
RNZ approached the Human Rights Commission on Thursday afternoon for a response to Yasbek doubling down on her recollection Rainbow had talked about the supposed antisemitism of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“The Chief Commissioner will not be elaborating further about what was said in the meeting,” a spokesperson said.

“He’s happy to discuss the matter privately with the people involved,” a spokesperson said.

“Dr Rainbow acknowledges that what was said caused harm and offence and what matters most is the impact on communities. That is why he has apologised unreservedly and stands by his apology.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A new media monitoring watchdog, Muslim Media Watch, published its first edition today featuring a cover story alleging that a Malaysian cult leader who was reportedly now in New Zealand could “create social unrest”.

Named as Suhaini bin Mohammad, he was allegedly posing as a Muslim religious leader and was said to be wanted by the authorities in Malaysia for “false teachings” that contradict Islam.

His cult ideology was identified by MMW as SiHulk, which was banned by the Johor State Religious Department (JAINJ) in 2021.

In an editorial, the 16-page publlcation said a need for “such a news outlet” as MMW had been shown after the mass shootings at two Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019 and the Royal Commission inquiry that followed.

Fifty one people killed in the twin attacks were all Muslims attending the Islamic Friday prayer — “they were targeted solely because they were Muslims”.

The editorial noted “the shooter was motivated largely by online material. His last words before carrying out the shootings were: ‘Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie.’”

“It is therefore disappointing that, while acknowledging the role of the media in the shootings, none of the 44 recommendations in the government’s response to the [Royal Commission] relate to holding media to account for irresponsible reporting, or even mention media; the word does not appear in any recommendation,” writes editor Adam Brown.

Often not neutral
“Indeed, the word Muslim appears only once, in ‘Muslim Community Reference Group’.
It has long been acknowledged that media reporting of Muslims and Islam is often not neutral.”

The editorial cited an Australian example, a survey by OnePath Network Australia which tallied the number, percentage and tone of articles about Islam in Australian media in 2017, in particular newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp: The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, The Herald Sun, The Courier Mail and The Advertiser.

“Over the year, the report found that 2891 negative articles ran in those five newspapers, where Islam and Muslims were mentioned alongside words like violence, extremism, terrorism and radical. This equates to over eight articles per day for the whole year; 152 of those articles ran on the front page,” said the MMW editorial.

“The percentage of their opinion pieces that were Islamophobic ranged from 19 percent
to 64 percent.

“The average was 31 percent, nearly a third, with one writer reaching almost two thirds. Also, as OnePath comment, ‘Even though they are stated to be “opinion” pieces, they are often written as fact.’”

Editor Brown said the situation in New Zealand had not improved since the shootings.

“Biased and unfair reporting on Muslim matters continues, and retractions are not always forthcoming,” he wrote.

Examples highlighted
The editorial said that the purpose of MMW was to highlight examples of media reporting — in New Zealand and overseas — that contained information about Islam that was not
accurate, or that was not neutrally reported.

It would also model ethical journalism and responsible reporting following Islamic practices and tradition.

MMW offered to conduct training sessions and to act as a resource for other media outlets.

On other pages, MMW reported about misrepresentation of Islam “being nothing new”, a challenge over a Listener article misrepresentation about girls’ education in Afghanistan, an emerging global culture of mass Iftar events, an offensive reference in a Ministry of Education textbook, and the ministry “acknowledges bias in teacher recruiting”, an article headlined “when are religious extremists not religious extremists”, and other issues.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A new media monitoring watchdog, Muslim Media Watch, published its first edition today featuring a cover story alleging that a Malaysian cult leader who was reportedly now in New Zealand could “create social unrest”.

Named as Suhaini bin Mohammad, he was allegedly posing as a Muslim religious leader and was said to be wanted by the authorities in Malaysia for “false teachings” that contradict Islam.

His cult ideology was identified by MMW as SiHulk, which was banned by the Johor State Religious Department (JAINJ) in 2021.

In an editorial, the 16-page publlcation said a need for “such a news outlet” as MMW had been shown after the mass shootings at two Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019 and the Royal Commission inquiry that followed.

Fifty one people killed in the twin attacks were all Muslims attending the Islamic Friday prayer — “they were targeted solely because they were Muslims”.

The editorial noted “the shooter was motivated largely by online material. His last words before carrying out the shootings were: ‘Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie.’”

“It is therefore disappointing that, while acknowledging the role of the media in the shootings, none of the 44 recommendations in the government’s response to the [Royal Commission] relate to holding media to account for irresponsible reporting, or even mention media; the word does not appear in any recommendation,” writes editor Adam Brown.

Often not neutral
“Indeed, the word Muslim appears only once, in ‘Muslim Community Reference Group’.
It has long been acknowledged that media reporting of Muslims and Islam is often not neutral.”

The editorial cited an Australian example, a survey by OnePath Network Australia which tallied the number, percentage and tone of articles about Islam in Australian media in 2017, in particular newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp: The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, The Herald Sun, The Courier Mail and The Advertiser.

“Over the year, the report found that 2891 negative articles ran in those five newspapers, where Islam and Muslims were mentioned alongside words like violence, extremism, terrorism and radical. This equates to over eight articles per day for the whole year; 152 of those articles ran on the front page,” said the MMW editorial.

“The percentage of their opinion pieces that were Islamophobic ranged from 19 percent
to 64 percent.

“The average was 31 percent, nearly a third, with one writer reaching almost two thirds. Also, as OnePath comment, ‘Even though they are stated to be “opinion” pieces, they are often written as fact.’”

Editor Brown said the situation in New Zealand had not improved since the shootings.

“Biased and unfair reporting on Muslim matters continues, and retractions are not always forthcoming,” he wrote.

Examples highlighted
The editorial said that the purpose of MMW was to highlight examples of media reporting — in New Zealand and overseas — that contained information about Islam that was not
accurate, or that was not neutrally reported.

It would also model ethical journalism and responsible reporting following Islamic practices and tradition.

MMW offered to conduct training sessions and to act as a resource for other media outlets.

On other pages, MMW reported about misrepresentation of Islam “being nothing new”, a challenge over a Listener article misrepresentation about girls’ education in Afghanistan, an emerging global culture of mass Iftar events, an offensive reference in a Ministry of Education textbook, and the ministry “acknowledges bias in teacher recruiting”, an article headlined “when are religious extremists not religious extremists”, and other issues.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“On the ground, there is a sense of disquiet and distrust of the organisers’ motivations for the hui, as some Muslim participants directly connected to the Christchurch tragedy were not invited.”

— Khairiah A. Rahman

The two-day Aotearoa New Zealand government He Whenua Taurikura Hui on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism this week saw participation of state agencies, NGOs, civil rights groups and minority representations from across the country.

Yet media reportage of deeply concerning issues that have marginalised and targeted minorities was severely limited on the grounds of media’s potential “inability to protect sensitive information”.

Lest we forget, the purpose of the Hui is a direct outcome of the Royal Commission recommendations following the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks.

The first hui last year had a media panel where Islamophobia in New Zealand and global media was addressed, and local legacy media reiterated their pact to report from a responsible perspective.

A year later, it would be good to hear what local media have done to ask the hard questions — where are we now in terms of healing for the Muslim communities? What is the situation with crime against Muslims across the country? What projects are ongoing to build social cohesion for a peaceful Aotearoa?

This year, the organisers decided to have the Hui address “all-of-society approaches” to countering violent extremism. This means removing the focus on issues faced by Muslims and extending this to concerns of other minorities subjected to abuse and hate-motivated attacks.

While Muslim participants embraced sharing the space with disenfranchised communities, many reflected that this should not detract from a follow-up to issues discussed at the last hui.

A media panel should address the role of media in representing the voiceless communities. In addition to media following up on Islamophobia, how has media represented minority groups based on their ethnicity, faith or sexual orientation? How can media play a direct role in truth-telling that would inspire social cohesion?

A participant of the LGBTQ+ community shared how bisexual members were threatened on social media as a result of local and international media’s reportage of the Amber Heard misogyny case in the US and the negative representation of bisexual people.

As a social conduit for communal voices and public opinion, the media have a significant role in countering terrorism and violent extremism and should not be excluded from the difficult conversations. Legacy, ethnic and diversity media must be included in all future hui, regardless of topics.

Confidential information can be struck from the record if necessary, but often this is hardly shared in a public forum.

There is little point having a Hui where critical national issues of safety and security are discussed across affected communities, if they are just noise in an echo chamber for those affected while people that care outside of this room are unaware.

Six takeaways from the Hui
Discussions centred on what community groups have been doing on the ground and what the larger society and government must do to counter radicalisation and terrorism.

1. Victims’ families call for a Unity Week

Hamimah Ahmat, widow of Zekeriya Tuyan who was killed in the terror attack, and who is chair of the Sakinah Trust, called on the government to observe an official Unity Week for the country to remember the 51 lives lost in Christchurch.

“More than funds — we need to make sure that the nation ring fences their time for reflection and their commitment to that [social cohesion].”

Sakinah Trust, formed by women relatives of the victims, organised Unity Week where Cantabrians participated in social activities and shared social media messages on “unity” to commemorate the lives lost and build a sense of togetherness across diverse communities.

This bonding exercise connected more than 310,000 New Zealanders and initiated 25,000 social media engagements. Hamimah emphasised the importance of this as during the pandemic Chinese migrants had suffered racism and hate rhetoric.

“We need a National Unity Week not just because of March 15 but because it is an essential element for our existence and the survival of our next generation — a generation who feels they belong and are empowered to advocate for each other,” she said.

“And this is how you honour all those beautiful souls and beautiful lives that we have lost through racism, extremism and everything that is evil.”

2. Issues and disappointment

Members of the IWCNZ (Islamic Council of Women in New Zealand) and other ethnic minority groups have repeatedly shared their disappointment that some speakers appeared to equate the terrorist mass murder in the two Christchurch mosques to the LynnMall attack in Auckland. Yet, the difference is stark.

One terrorist was killed and the other was apprehended unharmed. One had a history of trauma and mental instability, and police knew of this but failed to intervene.

The other was a white supremacist radical who had easy access to a semi-automatic weapon. While both could have been prevented, the LynnMall violent extremism was within the authority’s immediate control.

Aliya Danzeisen, a founding member of Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand (IWCNZ), said it was offensive that there was an inappropriate focus on the Muslim community in discourse on the LynnMall attack as there was failed deradicalization by the government corrections department.

“We find it offensive as a community because it was a failed government action, not getting in front, again, that someone was shot and killed and seven people were stabbed.”

Danzeisen also reported that despite sitting in the corrections forum for community, she was unaware of any change since the Royal Commission in terms of addressing radicalisation.

On the ground, there is a sense of disquiet and distrust of the organisers’ motivations for the hui, as some Muslim participants directly connected to the Christchurch tragedy were not invited.

Murray Stirling, treasurer of An Noor Mosque, and Anthony Green, a spokesperson for the Christchurch victims, were present at last year’s Hui but did not receive invitations this year.

3. Academic input from Te Tiriti perspectives

The opening of the conference was led by research from a Te Tiriti perspective. The Muslim community had called for a Te Tiriti involvement in the Hui to acknowledge the first marginalised people of the land.

One shared feature of all the discussions related to colonialism. Tina Ngata, environmental, indigenous and human rights activist, called out those in power who passively protect and maintain colonial privilege, allowing extreme and racist ideas to persist.

Ngata cited racialised myth-making in media and schools, state-sanctioned police violence, hyper-surveillance and the incarceration of non-white people.

She argued that a critical mass of harmful ideas was growing and that it is the “responsibility of accountable power to engage humbly in discussion; not just about participants as victims or solution-bearers but also about structural power as part of the problem”.

Bill Hamilton from the Iwi Chairs forum paid tribute to the work of the late Moana Jackson in the area of Te Tiriti, reminding people that Te Tiriti belonged to everyone.

Hamilton recounted that despite Te Tiriti’s promise of protection and non-discrimination, Māori suffered terrorist acts.

“We had invasions at Parihaka . . . our leaders were demonised . . . our grandparents were beaten as small kids by the state for speaking their language [Māori].”

Hamilton reflected on the values of rangatiratanga and said that perhaps, instead of forming a relationship with “the crown”, Māori was better off forming relationships with minority communities based on shared values.

He explained that rangatiratanga is a right to self-determination; the right to maintain and strengthen institutions and representations. It is a right enjoyed by everyone.

Hamilton called for a state apology and acknowledgement of the terrorism inflicted on whānau in Aotearoa. He proposed a revitalisation of rangatiratanga, the removal of inequalities and discrimination, and the strengthening of relationships.

Rawiri Taonui, an independent researcher, presented a Te Tiriti framework for national security.

There was a marked difference between the Crown’s sovereign view of the Te Tiriti relationship with Māori and Māori’s view of an equal and reciprocal Te Tiriti relationship with the Crown.

Taonui highlighted that while Te Tiriti was identified as important for social cohesion in the Royal Commission Report, Te Tiriti was absent in the 15 recommendations for social cohesion.

He explained the tendency in policy documents to separate Māori from new cultural communities.

“That is a very unhelpful disconnect because if we are trying to improve social cohesion, one of the things we need to do is bring Māori and many of our new cultural communities together. Because we share similar histories — colonisation, racism, violence.”

Taonui proposed a “whole of New Zealand approach” towards countering terrorism, emphasising social cohesion to prevent extremism as “we all belong here”.

4. On countering radicalism

In a panel session on “Responding to the changing threat environment in Aotearoa”, Paul Spoonley, co-director of He Whenua Taurikura National Centre of Research Excellence, said that he was confused about how communities should be engaged as “often the affected communities are not the ones that provided the activists or the extremists. How do we reach out to those communities who might often be Pākehā?

“By the time we get to know about these groups, they have progressed down quite a long path towards radicalisation.

“So if we are going to provide tools to communities, we must understand that the context in which people get recruited are often very intimate; we are talking about whānau and peer groups. We are talking about micro settings.”

Sara Salman, from Victoria University in Wellington, spoke on radicalism and the thought processes and emotional attraction to notoriety and camaraderie that encourage destructive behaviours.

For radicals, there is a feeling of deprivation, “a resentment and hostility towards changes in the social world”, whether these are women in the workspace, migrants in society, or co-governance in the political system.

In the context of March 15, the radical is typically a white supremacist male. Such males join extremist groups because they feel a sense of loss and are motivated by power and social status.

According to Salman, there is now a real threat to our governance and democracy by radical groups through subtle ways like entering into politics.

“Radical individuals who ascribe to supremacy ideas are engaging in disruptions that are considered legitimate by entering into local politics to disrupt governance.”

Salman warned that although the government might prefer disengagement, which is intervention before a person commits violence, deradicalisation is critical as it aims to change destructive thinking.

Research showed that children as young as 11 have been recruited and influenced by radical ideas. Without being repressive, the government needs to deradicalise vulnerable groups.

5. Vulnerable communities and post-colonial Te Tiriti human rights

Several speakers on the “countering messages of hate” panel discussed horrific stories of physical, verbal and sexual attacks based on their identities including, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation.

Many spoke about the lack of fair representations in media and professional roles and one participant emphasised that members of a group are diverse and not defined by stereotypes.

In an earlier session, chair of the Rainbow New Zealand Charitable Trust, called on society, including the ethnic and religious communities, to find ways of helping this group feel supported and loved in their communities.

Lexie Matheson, representing the trans community, spoke on the importance of being included in discussions about her people. She echoed my point at last year’s media panel about fair representations: “Nothing about us, without us”.

In the closing session, Paul Hunt, chair of the Human Rights Commission argued that the wide spectrum of human rights is normative as it defined the ethical and legal codes for conduct of states and constituted humanity’s response to countering terrorism.

Hunt offered a post-colonial human rights perspective and called for a process of truth-telling and peaceful reconciliation which respects the universal declaration of human rights and Te Tiriti.

“My point is in today’s Aotearoa, violent extremism includes racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia and white supremacy. And it is dangerous for all communities and for all of us.

“And if we are to address with integrity today’s violence, racism and white supremacy, we have to acknowledge yesterday’s violence, racism and white supremacy which was part of the social fabric of the imperial project in Aotearoa.”

6. What the Hui got right and wrong

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s presence and participation on the final day was timely, inspired confidence and implied a seriousness to address issues. Ardern covered developments that impact on national security, from technology, covid-19 and the war in Ukraine to climate change.

She addressed the radicalisation prevention framework and announced its release at year end, with an approved budget funding for $3.8 million to counter terrorism and violent extremism.

The Hui must have cost a pretty penny. Participants appreciated the food and comfort of the venue, but was there really a need for illustrators to capture the meetings on noticeboards?

If the organisers meant to enthuse participants with the novelties of artwork, stylish pens, and a supportive environment of aroha and healing, they have done a decent job.

But repeated feedback from Muslim representatives on the lack of action by government departments must be taken seriously and addressed promptly. All the good intentions without action achieve nothing.

Until those directly involved in the horrendous Christchurch massacres witness concrete sustainable actions that can support social cohesion, counter radicalism and violent extremism, the great expenses and show of love at this Hui would be wasted.

Khairiah A Rahman was a speaker at the media panel at the He Whenua Taurikura Hui in 2021. She is a senior lecturer at AUT’s School of Communication Studies, a member of FIANZ Think Tank, secretary of media education for Asian Congress of Media and Communication (ACMC), secretary of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), assistant editor of Pacific Journalism Review and a member of AUT’s Diversity Caucus.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The widow of the final victim in the 2019 terrorist attack says things have not improved for New Zealand Muslims.

Hamimah Amhat was recently exercising in Christchurch when a passing motorist screamed at her to go back to her country.

“That shook me, I just had to sit down and let myself calm down.”

Amhat said she did not stoop to the level of such hatred but found herself feeling bitterly disappointed.

“It was broad daylight and in a university area. That is just one of the recent incidents that has happened to me but I know of plenty of others too which is very discouraging.”

New Zealand’s annual gathering on countering terrorism and violent extremism, He Whenua Taurikura Hui 2022, got underway in Auckland today.

Members of the Māori, Pasifika, Jewish, Muslim, rainbow, and many more communities will unite at the Cordis Hotel for the two-day hui.

Conversations crucial
Amhat said conversations were crucial to prevent another mass murder.

Zekeriya Tuyan was the 51st victim of the 15 March 2019 terror attack, passing away 48 days after being shot in the chest.

He was survived by his beloved wife and two sons.

“The boys were very young, we lost a great friend, husband and father.”

Amhat said her husband treated her like a queen and she was still getting used to opening doors for herself as Tuyan always insisted on doing this for her.

“Simple things like that, he put me on a pedestal.”

Amhat is the chair of the Sakinah Community Trust, a kaupapa created by the daughters, wives and sisters of March 15 victims.

Strength and well-being
“It involves promotion of strength and well-being in the community.”

Among the many initiatives the group is involved with is Unity Week, which runs from March 15-22.

“It is about galvanising our allies, and touching the hearts of those sitting on the fence.”

The week acknowledges the affected communities which Amhat said were not just the people who were directly impacted by the events.

“It’s also the people who pulled up their sleeves and got together even though they were grieving as well and in shock, they made time to help the families and make sure the community continued to function.”

Amhat said the Muslim community could not sit back and wait for tolerance to come to them.

“People find it hard to approach us, just recently my driving instructor told me, ‘I didn’t know how to react to a Muslim woman,’ and I just had to tell him to smile, we are human beings.”

She said education was key to dispelling fears and myths.

‘Sharing our space together’
“We invite them to share our space together. Cut through our skin and we bleed red blood.”

While we were moving forward as a nation, things could be faster and more effective, Amhat said.

She cited recent incidents in Aotearoa including the Dunedin student who had her hijab ripped off, New Zealand soldiers linked to white supremacist groups and school board nominees spouting hateful ideology.

Amhat said anti-Chinese racism was also prevalent during the pandemic.

“It was as if people had forgotten about March 15 and racism actually increased towards the Chinese and everyone else who looked Chinese to those discriminatory people.”

Formalities at the hui began by acknowledging the survivors of the 2019 terrorist attack in Christchurch.

The morning then focussed on the consequences of colonialism and near two centuries of Pākehā dominance in Aotearoa.

‘Colonial entitlement’ still rife
Auckland University professor of indigenous studies Tracey McIntosh opened panel discussions looking at why the country needed to face deep but necessary discomfort over the impact colonisation had for Māori.

This included relocation, confiscation and invasion.

“Of all the times I hear government agencies say Te Tiriti, if there is one word that seems to avoid their tongue, that’s the word colonialism,” McIntosh said.

Those impacts included dishonouring the Treaty with impunity, mass incarceration, immigration policies and racialised myth making, she said.

“The forces that brought us here today are no less than pure, distilled, colonial entitlement.”

There was a responsibility of powers to humbly engage with the issue of racism, McIntosh said.

“You have centrist power mongers who passively protect and maintain colonial privilege while presenting themselves as benign allies.”

Independent body
Māori deserved an independent body to monitor threats, she said.

“While extremists get the most attention, because they are the loudest and most violent, they hold less structural power.”

Both the Crown and government agencies had a lot of work to do, McIntosh said.

“Taking on a Māori name and logo but not sharing power is not equality.”

New Zealand had seen the rise of groups that represented hate and hostility through online emboldenment, she said.

The 2019 terror attack disturbed New Zealand’s complacency, McIntosh said.

Another prominent Māori leader said his people continued to endure terrorism at the hands of the state.

Enduring terror acts
Bill Hamilton of the National Iwi Chairs Forum spoke of the terror acts his people had endured such as invasion and abduction.

“Our children were taken and continue to be taken by the likes of Oranga Tamariki, and those are violent terrorist acts on our people.”

Aotearoa still had very subtle and sneaky forms of racism today, he said.

Hamilton said what was supposed to guarantee protection, equality and a mutually beneficial relationship — Te Tiriti o Waitangi — had instead seen the demonisation of Māori leaders, beatings for use of te reo, and widespread invasion.

“Our grandparents were beaten as kids for speaking their language.”

The state needed to apologise for the terror inflicted on the Māori people, he said.

Hamilton believed there had been a residual effect across society where people viewed Māori as less than equal.

He Whenua Taurikura Hui 2022 continues tomorrow with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern scheduled to speak about 9am at Cordis Hotel.

The topic will be diversity in democracy, creating safe spaces online and countering messages of hate.

Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) is represented at the hui by Auckland University of Technology communications academic and Pacific Journalism Review assistant editor Khairiah A Rahman.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Three years on from the Christchurch terror attacks on 15 March 2019, Mahvash Ikram writes an open letter to her young son telling him one day he will learn how the Muslim community was targeted, but that shouldn’t scare him from going to a mosque.

Dear son,

You’re not yet two, but you’ve already been to the mosque several times. You don’t understand what happens there, but you love to copy what everyone does. You already know how to say Allah-o-Akbar, and it has become an essential part of your ever-growing vocabulary.

Some would say Muslims start early with their young and I agree wholeheartedly.

So, here’s your first lesson — never be ashamed of your beliefs.

But, remember your vocabulary also includes salam, which means peace. So, practise your faith in peace.

Not long from now, you will understand the concept of standing in prayer behind the imam.

And that’s when we will take you to the mosque for your first ever Friday prayer, Jummah.

We will most likely go as a family, and maybe a few friends will come along too. I will make a big deal out of it. Mothers are embarrassing in all cultures — especially your mum, just ask your older sister.

A white shirt
We will dress you in new clothes, probably a white shirt that will be a bit tight around your pudgy little tummy. It will no doubt get stained with your favourite lunch, which will be ready for you when you come home.

Soon you will learn Friday prayer is a bit of a celebration for Muslims — clean clothes, a hearty home-cooked meal and lots of people to meet at the mosque. It will be an important part of your social calendar, second only to the two big festival prayers.

I look forward to all of it, except one thing — one day you will learn about the March 15 terrorist attacks.

You will learn someone targeted innocent members of your community for their faith.

And that’s your second lesson, sometimes you will be treated unkindly for your beliefs. You are not alone, there are other communities that suffer the same fate.

Remember — this has nothing to do with you. You are not responsible for a fault in another person’s head.

Trust me, it will be a rude awakening — just like it was for the rest of our country. It is often called the end of Aotearoa’s innocence. Lots of people, including children, were killed and injured that day.

It still hurts
One of those who died was a three-year-old who went to the mosque with his older brother.

Another child was shot but survived. Lots of children lost their parents too. It still hurts.

Most grown-ups around you are trying to make sure something like this never happens again in Aotearoa and around the world.

Sometimes we fail, but we are trying.

Hate is an ugly emotion, too big for one’s body. When it takes over, it makes people cruel. They say and do things that can seriously hurt for a very long time. The worst part is these people don’t even realise how horrible they are.

You will also hear of people who practise your faith, but carry a similar hatred. Stay away from them. They, too, destroy families. Denounce them openly.

People may call you names, they may provoke you to fight back and say your religion teaches violence. It is not true. Ignore them.

Keep this verse of the Quran close to your heart and have patience with what they say and leave them with noble (dignity).

Don’t be scared
Don’t let all of this scare you from going to the mosque.

In fact, when you are a bit older I encourage you to go to all sorts of places of worship, whether it’s a mosque, a temple or a church, you will find tranquility and calm.

Don’t be afraid to know others and learn about their views, it is how we rid the world of hate.

Our religion teaches us to respect all other humans regardless of their faith, race, ethnic origin, gender, or social status.

I understand all this information might make you a bit nervous. It is a lot to take in for a little boy your age. But some grown ups just never got on to it and look at what that’s done.

So, let’s get started. After all, we Muslims do start a bit early with our young.

All my love,

Xoxoxo

Mummy

Mahvash Ikram is on the staff at Radio New Zealand. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Those born after 2001 have only known a world “at war on terror”.

This means a generation growing up under under fears and moral panics about Muslims and unparalleled security measures around their bodies and lives.

In my new book, Coming of Age in the War on Terror, I look at what this has meant for young Muslims in Australia as they navigate their political identities at school.

In 2018 and 2019, I interviewed and held writing workshops with more than 60 Muslim and non-Muslim high school students across Sydney who were born around the time of the September 11 terror attacks.

We explored their fears, their levels of trust with peers and teachers and political expression in a post 9/11 world.

No matter how many Muslim students spoke to me about their typically adolescent hobbies and interests, almost every student spoke about the impact of political and media discourse in their everyday lives.

Abdul-Rahman, a 17-year-old Muslim boy at an Islamic school in western Sydney, put it this way:

I’m not afraid of terrorism. I’m afraid of being accused of being a terrorist.

Another student, Laila, told me:

I’ve always had this almost preconceived guilt attached to me […] [It’s] the million messages in the media, politicians, popular culture, all these little things that add up and add up.

‘Countering violent extremism’
For teenagers to talk about themselves as potentially “accused” is devastating, but not particularly surprising.

For two decades, millions of federal and state dollars have been poured into “countering violent extremism” programmes targeting Muslim youth. There has been no subtlety here.

Counter-terrorism policies have been announced by politicians on the steps of mosques, with a focus on geographic and demographic populations deemed “at risk” (in other words, suburbs with large Muslim populations).

Consultations and round tables with government over “national security” have been highly publicised. Meanwhile, Islamophobic attacks have been condemned by politicians and the police because of how they might “undermine” relationships of cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement and the Muslim community.

The public has been routinely reassured the government is tackling the “problem” of young Muslim Australians, “with strong, deradicalisation programmes, working with Muslim communities”.

The figure of the vulnerable but also dangerous Muslim youth pops up time and time again, from moral panics around young “homegrown” terrorists, to attempts to introduce “jihadi watch” schemes in schools.

The pressure to self-censor
This landscape trickles down into young people’s everyday lives, including their schools.

The pressure to self-censor and manage your political and religious expression at school was a common theme among many students, resonating with what academics in the United Kingdom describe in their research.

Anticipating how their tone, words and emotion would be interpreted by teachers and peers restricted students’ political expression.

This included a young Palestinian girl who had to push back against teachers, who reprimanded her for wearing a “Free Palestine” t-shirt at school, to students who refrained from writing about Iraq or Afghanistan as part of assignments because they had been cautioned not to “bring overseas conflicts into the classroom”.

Other students talked of staying quiet if controversial topics came up in class, such as news of a terrorist attack involving Muslims, or media headlines about Islam.

I also met students who tried to appear as “good” or “moderate” Muslims (which inevitably meant apolitical) and erased all traces of their Muslimness to “fit in”.

Feeling targeted, isolated
In 2015, there was a media frenzy about youth radicalisation in prayer rooms in Sydney’s state schools. I interviewed students at a school in north-west Sydney three years later and they spoke about how that controversy had been felt in their school life.

Most of the students from suburbs and schools who came under media and political scrutiny as “problematic” had felt targeted and isolated. One student withdrew from his Muslim peers, abandoned his prayers at school, took different routes to school to avoid being hassled by the media, and “shut down” in class.

I got dragged into an argument with other kids in class about me following the same religion as these terrorists […] but my tone […] I came off very aggressive […] then I was scared, because that’s what people think of as radical extremists […] I felt like I’d be taken straight to the principal and you would have to deal with that. So I shut up.

We need a new approach
After two decades of seeing young Muslims as “problems” to be contained and managed, it is time we approached them in a different way.

Adolescence is a time to encourage critical thinking and support young people navigating their political identities and agency. Young people need to be empowered to work through their political and religious ideas and identities in safe, supportive environments. They need to be seen as individuals in their own right, not members of a demonised, racialised collective.

The vast majority of the young Muslims I spoke to were matter-of-fact about the global rise of Islamophobia and racism. They knew about certain jokes and assumptions in the popular vernacular (for example, “Allahu Akbar and bomb jokes” or “terrorist” equals “Muslim”).

Many were concerned about what this meant as they grew up and left school. They worried about facing discrimination at work and being able to practise their faith openly. They also knew how this suspicion and dehumanisation had been triggered by wider discourses and policies over which they had no power.

It is not up to the 9/11 generation to change this. We need teachers, politicians and the media to create a culture where young Muslims feel accepted and secure in their right to express their religious and political identities.

• This article was produced as part of Social Sciences Week, running 6-12 September. A full list of 70 events can be found here. Randa Abdel-Fattah will appear in a webinar on the “Implications of 9/11: 20 years” at 6pm on Thursday September 9.

Dr Randa Abdel Fattah is a DECRA research fellow, Macquarie University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz