On Friday, March 22, a video circulated of TNI (Indonesian military) soldiers torturing a civilian in Papua. In the video, the victim is submerged in a drum filled with water with his hands tied behind his back.

The victim was alternately beaten and kicked by the TNI members. The victim’s back was also slashed with a knife.

The video circulated quickly and was widely criticised.

Gustav Kawer from the Papua Association of Human Rights Advocates (PAHAM) condemned the incident and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

This was then followed by National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM), Indonesian Human Rights Watch (Imparsial), the Diocese, the church and students.

Meanwhile, Cenderawasih/XVII regional military commander (Pangdam) Major-General Izak Pangemanan tried to cover up the crime by saying it was a hoax and the video was a result of “editing”.

This argument was later refuted by the TNI itself and it was proven that TNI soldiers were the ones who had committed the crime. Thirteen soldiers were arrested and accused over the torture.

The torture occurred on 3 February 2024 in Puncak Regency, Papua.

Accused of being ‘spies’
The victim who was seen in the video was Defianus Kogoya, who had been arrested along with Warinus Murib and Alianus Murib. They were arrested and accused of being “spies” for the West Papua National Liberation Army-Free Papua Organisation (TPNPB-OPM), a cheap accusation which the TNI and police were subsequently unable to prove.

Indonesia human rights: 13 soldiers arrested after torture video. Video: Al Jazeera

The three were arrested when the TNI was conducting a search in Amukia and Gome district. When Warinus was arrested, his legs were tied to a car and he was dragged for one kilometre, before finally being tortured.

Alianus, meanwhile ,was also taken to a TNI post and tortured. After several hours, they were finally handed over to a police post because there was not enough evidence to prove the TNI’s accusations.

Defianus finally fainted, while Warinus died of his injuries. Warinus’ body was cremated by the family the next day on February 4.

Defianus is still suffering and remains seriously ill. This is a TNI crime in Papua.

But that is not all. On 22 February 2022, the TNI also tortured seven children in Sinak district, Puncak. The seven children were Deson Murib, Makilon Tabuni, Pingki Wanimbo, Waiten Murib, Aton Murib, Elison Murib and Murtal Kurua.

Makilon Tabuni died as a result.

Civilians murdered, mutilated
On August 22, the TNI murdered and mutilated four civilians in Timika. They were Arnold Lokbere, Irian Nirigi, Lemaniel Nirigi and Atis Tini.

The bodies of the four were dismembered: the head, body and legs were separated into several parts, put in sacks then thrown into a river.

Six days later, soldiers from the Infantry Raider Battalion 600/Modang tortured four civilians in Mappi regency, Papua. The four were Amsal P Yimsimem, Korbinus Yamin, Lodefius Tikamtahae and Saferius Yame.

They were tortured for three hours and suffered injuries all over their bodies.

Three days later, on August 30, the TNI again tortured two civilians named Bruno Amenim Kimko and Yohanis Kanggun in Edera district, Mappi regency. Bruno Amenim died while Yohanis Kanggun suffered serious injuries.

On October 27, three children under the age of 16 were tortured by the TNI in Keerom regency. They were Rahmat Paisel, Bastian Bate and Laurents Kaung. They were tortured using chains, coils of wire and water hoses.

The atrocity occurred in the Yamanai Village, Arso II, Arso district.

On 22 February 2023, TNI personnel from the Navy post in Lantamal X1 Ilwayap tortured two civilians named Albertus Kaize and Daniel Kaize. Albertus Kaize died of his injuries. This crime occurred in Merauke regency, Papua.

95 civilians tortured
Between 2018 and 2021, Amnesty International recorded that more than 95 civilians had been tortured and killed by the TNI and the police. These crimes target indigenous Papuans, and the curve continues to rise year by year, ever since Indonesia occupied Papua in 1961.

These crimes were committed one after another without a break, and followed the same pattern. So it can be concluded that these were not the acts of rogue individuals or one or two people as the TNI argues to reduce their crimes to individual acts.

Rather, they are structural (systematic) crimes designed to subdue the Papuan nation, to stop all forms of Papuan resistance for the sake of the exploitation and theft of Papua’s natural resources.

The problems in Papua cannot be solved by increasing the number of police or soldiers. The problems in Papua must be resolved democratically.

This democratic solution must include establishing a human rights court for all perpetrators of crimes in Papua since the 1960s, and not just the perpetrators in the field, but also those responsible in the chain of command.

Only this will break the pattern of crimes that are occurring and provide justice for the Papuan people. A human rights court will also mean weakening the anti-democratic forces that exist in Indonesia and Papua — namely military(ism).

Garbage of history
A prerequisite for achieving democratisation is to eliminate the old forces, the garbage of history.

The cleaner the process is carried out, the broader and deeper the democracy that can be achieved. This also includes the demands of the Papuan people to be given the right to determine their own destiny.

This is not a task for some later day, but is the task of the Papuan people today. Nor is the task of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) political elite or political activists alone, but it is the task of all Papuan people if they want to extract themselves from the crimes of the TNI and police or Indonesian colonialism.

Independence can only be gained by the struggle of the ordinary people themselves. The people must fight, the people must take to the streets, the people must build their own ranks, their own alternative political tool, and fight in an organised and guided manner.

Sharon Muller is a leading member of the Socialist Union (Perserikatan Sosialis, PS) and a member of the Socialist Study Circle (Lingkar Studi Sosialis, LSS). Arah Juang is the newspaper of the Socialist Union.

Translated by James Balowski for Indoleft News. The original title of the article was “Kejahatan TNI di Papua dan Solusi Demokratis Untuk Rakyat Papua dan Indonesia”.

References
Gemima Harvey’s report The Human Tragedy of West Papua, 15 January 2014. This reports states that more than 500,000 West Papua people have been slaughtered by Indonesia and its actors, the TNI and police since 1961.

Veronica Koman’s chronology of torture of civilians in Papua. Posted on the Veronica Koman Facebook wall, 24 March 2024.

Jubi, Alleged torture of citizens by the TNI adds to the long list of violence in the land of Papua. 23 March 2024.

VOA Indonesia, Amnesty International: 95 civilians in Papua have been victims of extrajudicial killings.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In the last 15 days of the month of July, 15 murders have occurred in the northern Papua New Guinean town of Madang — once described as “beautiful” — and the community now faces a law and order crisis.

Madang Mayor Peter Masia said the Madang district authority could not do much in assisting police to actively carry out law and order action because public funds were still on hold after sitting MP Bryan Kramer had been dismissed as Madang MP.

Calling Madang the “murder capital of PNG”, Masia said there had been an increase in killings with the latest killing occurring yesterday afternoon.

Compared to the National Capital District (NCD) — Port Moresby — where killings happen every 2 to 3 days, Madang has seen killings every day for the last 15 days.

An NCD police officer confirmed that every 2 to 3 days they were responding to a report of a killing in Port Moresby.

“Yesterday a young man in his mid 20s from Angoram in East Sepik was stabbed in the chest by a street seller in broad daylight in the heart of [Madang] killing him instantly,” he said.

Madang police desperately need resources to help them tackle Law and Order challenges in the province everyday.

Police need housing, vehicles
A senior policeman who wished not to be named said Madang police needed housing, vehicles and things like office stationery and manpower to boost police work in the province.

There are two police stations in Madang — one is the Jomba police station and the other is the town police station.

The officer said the estimated population ratio for one policeman to the Madang population was 1:1500 to 2000.

He said they needed more police manpower to tackle the law and order problems, especially the killings that were happening every day.

Transgogol people are now calling on the government to establish a police mobile squad base in the area to prevent more brutal murders in their area.

Transgogol community leader and spokesman Morris Bann said there was state-owned land available.

He said the type of killings in the area warranted the government to take serious steps in addressing law and order.

Call for police mobile squad
“We want a police mobile squad base built . . . so that law and order is monitored closely to instill the trust and security the people require from its government,” said Bann.

Madang town resident Breed Kanjikali said the number of deaths required all Madang MPs to step in and address issues affecting the province and map out how they would assist police in combating crimes in the province.

Bundi leader Alois Pandambai said the murder toll in the province was very significant and it portrayed an image where there was dysfunction in the political leadership of the province.

He said Madang province did not seem to be functioning normally in the last seven months because of a political hussle and tussle over the position of the Provincial Administrator Frank Lau.

“While our leaders are fighting over an appointment made by the NEC [National Executive Council], we are not giving 100 percent support to police work and our own people are being killed everyday,” he said.

The 10 Nissan Patrol vehicles bought two years ago to support police work were now experiencing mechanical faults and had been grounded.

Dorothy Mark is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Indonesian military says a tribunal has sentenced an army major to life in prison for his involvement in the brutal murder of four Papuan civilians in the Mimika district.

Their mutilated bodies were found in August 2022.

Benar News reports that human rights activists and victims’ relatives welcomed the conviction of Major Helmanto Fransiskus Dakhi as progress in holding members of security forces accountable for abuses in West Papua.

“The defendant … was found guilty of premeditated murder,” Herman Taryaman, a spokesman for the Indonesian military command in Papua, told journalists.

The tribunal also dismissed Dakhi from the military.

Taryaman said four other soldiers charged in connection with the killings were being tried by a tribunal in the provincial capital of Jayapura.

A sixth military suspect died in December after falling ill, while police say four civilians were also facing trial in a civilian court.

Headless bodies
Asia Pacific Report reported on 31 August 2021 that residents of Iwaka village in Mimika district had been shocked by the discovery of four sacks, each containing a headless and legless torso, in the village river.

Two other sacks were found separately, one containing four heads and the other eight legs. The sacks were weighted with stones.

A spokesman for the victims’ families, Aptoro Lokbere, said he was “satisfied” with the conviction and sentence.

Gustaf Kawer, an attorney for the victims’ families, said the life sentence for the major was a “brave” decision that should be emulated by military and civilian courts in similar cases.

Activists had said the violence degraded the dignity of indigenous Papuans amid allegations of ongoing rights abuses by government security forces in West Papua.

Dakhi is the third Indonesian Armed Forces member to be sentenced to life by a military court in a murder case since June.

Anger as MSG recruits Indonesians
Meanwhile, the Melanesian Spearhead Group’s secretariat in Vanuatu has confirmed it has recruited two Indonesians.

The statement from the group came during a protest against the move in front of the secretariat by the Vanuatu Free West Papua Association.

The group’s director-general, Leonard Louma, said the agency was aiming to strengthen its capacity and this would include the recruitment of two Indonesian nationals, filling the roles of the private sector development officer and the manager of arts, culture and youth programme.

Louma said the secretariat had been directed to “re-prioritise” its activities and was now positioning itself to meet the demands and expectations of the leaders.

The Free West Papua Association said hiring the Indonesians made a mockery of the support Vanuatu had given West Papua for many years.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop wants the city’s police to fully investigate the gruesome murder of two women in Port Moresby late last week.

Parkop told the Post-Courier that such “despicable” brutality against womenfolk in the city and throughout the country was not welcome — and the recent crimes were not either.

The two women were allegedly raped, murdered and dumped at different locations last week.

One body was discovered at the 9-Mile public cemetery just outside the city and the other body at a spot along the Gordon storm-water drain in the early hours of Sunday morning.

“I am and will continue to be appalled that such despicable crimes continue to be committed against women and girls in our city and elsewhere in our country,” Parkop said.

“While there may be other factions contributing to these crimes, the lack of or poor respect for women and girls as equal citizens of our country remains a main cause of violence against women and girls in our country.”

Parkop is a strong advocate of women’s rights and has initiated several programmes to promote gender equality within Port Moresby and also in the National Capital District Commission (NCDC).

Women’s, girl’s lives ‘risky’
“These latest killings in our city are not an exception. Lives of women and girls continue to be risky in our country as a result of continuing gender inequality. I appeal to the police to investigate and have these perpetrators arrested and charged.”

The NCDC will continue to promote the gender equality and eliminate gender-based violence (GBV) across the city.

“On our part in the city we continue to implement our GBV strategy which we will in fact escalate [on Wednesday] with signing of more of NCDC contractors pledging to abide by and implement the strategy with us,” Parkop added.

Port Moresby police chief Metropolitan Superintendent Gideon Ikumu warned over the security of females in the city after the discovery of the two dead women.

Superintendent Ikumu urged city residents — especially young girls and women — to be more considerate about their security and safety when “hanging out with friends” during social outings.

He said such killings were a concern for police and investigations were continuing.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s National Court has sent a strong message and warning to those accused of sorcery-related violence when it jailed six people for 40 years each for killing a father and his son in Northern province three years ago.

Acting Judge Camillus Sambua jailed Cameron Jovu, Mike Jofo, Clenty Orotu, Branden Asiko, Andrew Sariko and Jesse Akuma, all from Ambene village in Kokoda, last Thursday for the murder of Bartholomew Umbu and his son Siko.

The six killers had accused Umbo and Siku of practising sorcery.

Defence lawyer Emmanuel Yavisa from the Public Solicitor’s Office submitted that his clients be jailed 20 to 25 years because sorcery was a mitigating factor.

However, state lawyer Solomon Kuku argued that sorcery was not a mitigating factor as it was based on assumptions and not facts.

Kuku submitted that a term of 30 years to life imprisonment should be imposed as the killings were gruesome with disregard for human life.

Judge Samua then jailed all the six 40 years each.

‘Life a gift from God’
“Life is a gift from God,” he said.

“It should be kept sacred as it is very precious.

“The act by the six accused [was] barbaric with no regard to life,” he added.

Cameron Jovu will serve 40 years concurrently for two counts of murder.

Mike Jofo, Clenty Orotu, Smith Asiko and Brendan Asiko, were jailed for one count of murder, while Jesse Akuma and Andrew Sariko, for two counts of murder.

A total of 18 people were accused of being involved in the sorcery-related killing.

Eleven were acquitted on Tuesday.

Those acquitted were Emmanuel Koviro, Humphrey Konene, Bobby Jovu, Timothy Jofo, Howard Pou, Zebedee Akuma, Frank Johnson, Loide Koiko Sawa, Smith Ariko, Tadiu Roko and Robert Jovu.

Clarissa Moi is a reporter for The National. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Afghanis who say they have witnessed torture and murder at the hands of Australian soldiers want the chance to testify in court as well as compensation, a journalist says.

Australia’s Defence Force Chief Angus Campbell announced yesterday that there is information to substantiate 23 incidents of alleged unlawful killing of 39 people by 25 special forces personnel in Afghanistan.

He was commenting on a four-year inquiry that found “credible information” supporting allegations of war crimes by the country’s special forces.

Major-General Paul Brereton’s report also said junior soldiers were often required by their patrol commanders to shoot prisoners to get their first kill in a practice known as “blooding”.

The inquiry also found evidence soldiers gloated about their actions, kept kill counts and planted phones and weapons on corpses to justify their actions.

One victim had told him four of his family had been killed – two brothers and two cousins.

In another village he spoke to a number of victims about their bad experiences and they described “murders after murders”.

“One man did say to me that he wanted to look up in the eyes of these killers and ask them why did they kill so many innocent Afghans.”

Another man he interviewed could not stop crying as he likened the sound of bullets from a gun with a silencer to “drops of water”.

“These families… have been telling me that they want to get justice, that they want to make sure this is a transparent process and that those responsible are brought to justice.”

They have asked him if those directly affected will get the chance to fly to Australia to give evidence in courtrooms there, Sarwary said.

Many of the people involved were very poor and they had also asked him about their chances of receiving compensation from Australia.

Sarwary said that the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission has demanded that Australia adopts a transparent process as it lays charges against the perpetrators and there should be compensation for victims.

‘We crossed a very bad line’ – ex-soldier
The Brereton inquiry heard from more than 400 witnesses, including former SAS paramedic Dusty Miller, who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012.

He told the ABC he witnessed a number of unlawful killings and has since struggled with “psychological wounds”.

He said he felt vindicated after reading the report and was in no doubt that some of the soldiers needed to go to jail for their crimes. It might be hard for the Australian public to accept such behaviour had occurred, he said.

“We’ve got this proud ANZAC tradition that we’re trying to uphold but unfortunately it’s like finding out that Santa Claus isn’t real.

“We crossed a very bad line and we crossed it for a number of years and we need to pay that price now.”

The report also warned that more killings would be revealed in the future and Miller said he was sure that is true.

Some soldiers’ lives had been ruined by what they had witnessed in Afghanistan. It also meant the end of his own military career, Miller said.

‘Everybody knew what was going on’
“Everybody knew what was going on. It was a day-to-day occurrence. We normalised it… you certainly had to go along with what was happening because the alternative would have been professional suicide. You’d have been ostracised.

“There was no way you would have flagged this with the commanders or speak up – that would have been unthinkable.”

Miller said the commanders must have known what was happening especially as they had debriefs after every mission.

However, it was “a minority group” who acted badly and the majority of men he served with were “honourable” although they operated in a “dog eat dog” aggressive environment.

Clear differences between NZ and Australian troops, says author
Investigative journalist Jon Stephenson, the co-author of Hit and Run, the book which led to the Operation Burnham Inquiry, said there was a difference between the way Australian forces behaved and the conduct of New Zealand forces.

“It’s clear that for Operation Burnham the allegations concerned civilian casualties but they weren’t deliberate. The New Zealand forces were involved in an action in Afghanistan that led to civilian casualties but they didn’t intend for those people to die,” Stephenson told Morning Report.

“Whereas in the Australian case, there’s a clear difference, in that they deliberately planned and carried out unlawful actions, alleged war crimes – shooting people who were in their custody and posed no threat or civilians.”

Australian and New Zealand troops worked together in some places, such as headquarters, but they did not go out in large numbers on missions together.

After New Zealand troops had bad experiences working with the US in Afghanistan a decision was made that New Zealand troops would operate as independently as possible so they would not be “contaminated” by some of the behaviour they saw.

In some cases they did support missions, but generally they acted on their own or with the Afghans, Stephenson said.

Australian federal police will investigate the specifics and decisions will be made about which troopers should be prosecuted over the 39 alleged murders. This process may take years, he said.

“It would be my expectation, based on what I’ve heard, and the people I’ve spoken to, that there will definitely be a large number of prosecutions.

“It’s inconceivable to me given that, for example, people have been shown on camera shooting unarmed young men in a field who posed no threat, that there will not be successful prosecutions, convictions and some people will serve serious jail time.”

Defence Force chief General Angus Campbell identified a significant problem with what he called “toxic warrior culture” in Australian forces and this was not seen in the New Zealand forces.

However, Stephenson said it is important for New Zealanders to consider if their troops had served as many rotations in the same same high intensity conflict areas and had lost as many troops in conflicts as the Australians did whether such a culture might evolve.

He believes that NZ troops would not have resorted to this type of behaviour.

“I think there are significant cultural problems in the Australian military. They have got a very different attitude towards indigenous people than our troopers have.

“That’s not to say that our forces have acted impeccably at all times, but I do think there are significant cultural differences, training differences between New Zealand and Australia.”

With New Zealand’s smaller numbers it was also easier to identify bad behaviour.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A man who confronted a terrorist on the day of the New Zealand killings and again during his sentencing in the High Court says the perpetrator has got “what he deserved”.

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

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

READ MORE: Mosque tragedy reports on Asia Pacific Report

Many of the 98 victims who shared their impact statements in court this week had pleaded with the judge to take this course.

Abdul Aziz Wahabzadah confronted the murderer on the third day of the hearings with some taunting words in his victim impact statement.

He was also hailed as a hero on the day of the attacks because he challenged and chased the terrorist from the Linwood Mosque.

At the end of his statement, the judge commended him for his bravery. Abdul Aziz told RNZ Morning Report that was “a great honour” but he was focusing on “the coward” in court who had taken away so many of his fellow Muslims.

Stirring up stark memories
Facing him in court had been difficult, stirring up stark memories of seeing two elderly women and a man lying fatally shot on the ground.

“There was a lot of hate and a lot of anger but you have to control it because we have to follow the law.

“We waited for a long time for that day and we achieved what we wanted and he achieved what he deserved.”

The Muslim community will move on. “Because we don’t have any other choice, we have to move on with our lives because we cannot bring the brothers and sisters, the ones who died, back. We have no choice.”

In response to NZ First’s leader Winston Peters call for the gunman to be imprisoned in Australia, he said the terrorist was “a piece of rotten meat” that no one wanted, and it was up to the two governments.

“He held the flag of that country with hate and shame… who wants such a person back in the country?”

It was important that the killer was also found guilty of terrorism. The tragedy has helped the world see that Muslims are peaceful people, not the terrorists that they are so often portrayed, Abdul Aziz said.

‘Brave brothers and sisters’
Dr Hamimah Tuyan left her two sons in Singapore to travel to the High Court in Christchurch to speak and honour her late husband, Zekeriya – the 51st victim to die.

She told Morning Report she wrestled for some time if she should write a statement. Once she came back to Christchurch she decided she would listen to every victim statement delivered in court.

“I was just so inspired by the brave brothers and sisters – their words, their feelings. I’m just so glad that I actually wrote it and opted to read it. That was the only way I could represent my husband and my boys.”

She did not want to look at the gunman and was surprised to find herself smiling at him when she entered court. That set the tone for the delivery of her statement. “He was attentive… I appreciated that he looked at me and was attentive.”

After reading out her statement, she like many others, felt a weight lift from her shoulders and then left everything in the hands of God and the judge.

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

The sentence left her feeling “very relieved, we prayed for this outcome and the judge handed it to him with such mana and such grace”.

Four months in writing
Aya Al-Umari, who lost her brother, Hussein, at the Al Noor Mosque, told Morning Report her impact statement was four months in the writing.

She found it almost impossible because there were no words to express the experience of having lunch with her brother one day, and then having to think of burying him the next.

She said her mother, Janna Ezat, went “off-script” to offer forgiveness to the mass killer with her address. Her mother was a superwoman, Al-Umari said, and seemed to arouse some emotion in the gunman who wiped his eye.

“What my mum said would move mountains. So I don’t want to believe he has feelings, because he didn’t have any feelings when he killed 51 of us… I think my mother’s words really echoed, really moved mountains but I’m not sure [about the gunman’s response].”

Going on the Hajj to Mecca gave her some internal peace and tranquillity and now that the sentencing is over, she is adjusting to the new family structure without her brother.

Hisham al-Zarzour, who survived the shooting at Al Noor Mosque because he was trapped under a pile of bodies, told Morning Report yesterday was a big day for all New Zealanders as well as the Muslim community.

Judgment ‘helpful for victims’
“The judgment was helpful for all the victims, especially when we know this is the first time for New Zealand… New Zealand proved to all the world this is a place for justice.”

He is grateful to Justice Mander for his thorough address before announcing the sentence. The judge had acknowledged the scale of the victims’ losses and did not believe that the terrorist felt any remorse.

“We’ll heal a little … at least we can feel we’re in a safe place.”

The terrorist had a distorted view of history, Hisham said, and in his impact statement he had tried to correct his misguided views.

Despite losing his wife, Husna, in the attacks, Farid Ahmed did not attend the sentencing hearing.

Immediately after the attacks he made a point of forgiving the gunman, believing that he was a victim of wrong ideas.

The gunman had spoken through his bullets and Farid did not want to hear anything new from him.

“I didn’t want to give him the false gratification of telling him how I hurt and how I suffered.”

He said he felt love for the Muslim community and he respected their decision to take part in the hearing.

Despite not attending court, he still wanted to meet the terrorist in person to talk to him about why he carried out the massacre.

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:

Other RNZ coverage:

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

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

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

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

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

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

The convicted terrorist will then have the opportunity to speak.

A standby lawyer is available to assist Tarrant if necessary.

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

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

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

“But you took that from me.

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

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

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

The remark elicited a smile from the terrorist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It was a horrible time.

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

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

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

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

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

Ambreen Naeem’s youngest surviving boy is only seven.

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

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

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

Healthline: 0800 611 116

Daily wellbeing actions from the Mental Health Foundation

Covid-19 mental health and wellbeing resources

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, although New Zealand prisoners in Australian jails may not be transferred to serve their sentences at home, they will be deported at the end of their sentences.

From early 2015 to mid-2018, about 1,300 New Zealander ex-prisoners had been deported from Australia. After a brief interlude due to covid-19, the deportations resumed.

It is no exaggeration to say this policy (and the cruel standards by which it is applied) are a significant irritant between the two countries.

If it doesn’t change it’s likely to get worse, too. As of mid-2019, New Zealand prisoners made up 3 percent of the total Australian prisoner population (43,028) – about 1,100 people.

Conversely, there were only about 35 Australians in our jails, out of about 320 foreigners in New Zealand’s much smaller prison population (9,324 as of March, 2019).

Time for new deal on expat prisoners
Somewhere in the middle of this darkness there is a glimmer of hope – the chance of a deal and a better relationship between the two countries.

Sign a prisoner transfer agreement. Exchange Tarrant and make him serve out his sentence in Australia, as ruled by the New Zealand judicial system.

Revise the rules for the deportation of New Zealanders who have committed crimes in Australia but been resident for a long time. Move the threshold for deportation from one to three years in prison and make it reciprocal.

Thereafter, recent arrivals in either country who commit serious crimes (such as Brenton Tarrant) are transferred home to serve their time in accordance with their sentences.

Do this and we might start to move forward.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

NEWS REVIEW: Robert Baird

The Australian lawyer who helped uncover the Timor-Leste bugging scandal says Australia had direct, advanced knowledge of the threat that faced the murdered Balibo Five journalists, with a report describing the men as a “hurdle to be got over” in keeping clandestine activities secret.

Bernard Collaery has published what he describes as a “a survey of failed Australian policy” towards its much smaller neighbour. In Oil Under Troubled Water, he describes seven decades of “grim” history, including the Indonesian occupation years he pointedly labels “genocide”.

“I’ve not called it a holocaust, I wouldn’t use that term… [but] when there is a reckless starvation of people, it is close to, and [it] is genocide,” he told Tatoli.

The release of the book comes as Collaery and the former Australian Special Intelligence Service (ASIS) officer known as Witness K face criminal prosecution for their role in exposing the bugging of Timor-Leste’s cabinet rooms during sensitive oil and gas treaty negotiations in 2004.

The claims about Australia’s high-level knowledge of the impending Balibo attack come in a report which Collaery uncovered in the UK National Archives, where he spent some time researching the book. It highlights the information-sharing between Australia and Indonesia’s intelligence agency, then known as Bakin, in the lead up to the December 1975 invasion.

In his report, Britain’s then-Ambassador to Indonesia, John Ford, writes “the only limitation on clandestine activity now appears to be of its exposure”.

“A particular hurdle to be got over is a plane load of Australian journalists and politicians who are due to visit Timor… to investigate allegations of Indonesian intervention,” Ford writes. “The information from the Australians is sensitive and should not be played back to them or repeated to other missions.”

For Collaery, who advised the East Timor resistance for more than 30 years and has represented the families of the murdered Balibo Five, this was a “shocking” candour.

“[The Whitlam government] could hardly warn the Australians… that Indonesian special forces were a danger to them without conceding that they were aware that clandestine activities were happening inside Portuguese Timor,” he writes.

“So, rather than save lives, they saved the relationship with the Indonesian intelligence service, clearly.”

The report undermines the official version of events leading up to the Balibo attack. A 2002 Parliamentary report found another intelligence agency, the Defence Signals Directorate, did not have “intelligence material that could have alerted the government to the possibility of harm to the newsmen” and that “there was no holding back or suppression of data”.

‘We will not press you on the issue’: Kissinger
Collaery also quotes a US State Department transcript of a meeting between Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Indonesian General Suharto on December 6, 1975 he said betrays a “profound breach” of the United Nations charter.

“We want your understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action [in Timor],” General Suharto said.

“We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have,” Secretary Kissinger replied.

The day after the conversation, Indonesia invaded Dili and began its 24-year occupation of Timor-Leste.

Collaery says the conversation is evidence Indonesia acted with “unprovoked aggression“.

“[And] it’s a breach of the code by the United States as an accessory to that series of war crimes,” he says. Australia, as “a more silent witness”, was also complicit, he adds.

‘It’s ruined my law practice… they would have known that’
The book carefully skirts around the criminal proceedings Collaery faces for legal reasons.

“It’s not a memoir,” he says. “That comes later”.

A well-known Canberra barrister, former ACT Attorney-General and diplomat, Collaery took the former ASIS agent Witness K on as a client in 2013. After learning of the bugging operation, Collaery had arranged for his client to give evidence at a confidential overseas hearing.

But after news of the bugging operation was reported in the Australian media, the country’s domestic spy agency, ASIO, raided the lawyer’s home, seizing documents and data. ASIO also raided the home of his client, and had his passport cancelled, preventing Witness K from attending the hearing.

In protest, Timor-Leste unilaterally withdrew from the 2004 CMATS Treaty and took the case to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, with Collaery representing them. The case was subsequently withdrawn, and the two countries resolved the dispute through mandatory conciliation in early 2018.

Months after the treaty was signed, Collaery and Witness K were charged under the Intelligence Services Act of 2001. The Act criminalises the unauthorised disclosure of certain information about ASIS, Australia’s foreign spy agency.

Collaery is frank about how the prolonged case has affected his life.

“It’s ruined my law practice… I live on borrowed money, I can’t practice as an advocate in court, I’ve had to let my staff go. That’s all predictable and [prosecutors] would have known that,” he says.

Serious legal risks
Celestino Gusmão from L’ao Hamutuk, a Dili-based human rights organisation, has extensively researched the long-running maritime border dispute. He says Timor-Leste has shown great support to Collaery and Witness K.

“Through their love, their solidarity with the Timorese people, they put the people of Timor ahead [of their own lives],” he says.

Gusmão says he appreciates the serious legal risks the pair ran in exposing the bugging operation.

“I think Bernard Collaery and Witness K [were] prepared for this, but [they] should not be used as a deterrent,” he says.

• Bernard Collaery (2020). Oil Under Troubled Water, Melbourne University Press. This news review was first published in Tatoli, the Timor-Leste News Agency website.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Although important questions remain about the Government’s firearms law reform programme, at this stage there is a broad consensus that Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues have successfully navigated the first tranche of change.

 
Praise is coming in from all quarters, including internationally. And when praise for gun law reform also comes from farmers’ groups, hunters, the police, and a variety of political commentators, then you can be sure that the Government has dealt with this major response to the Christchurch terrorist attacks in a highly adept fashion.

What the Government announced on Thursday was definitely a compromise, which is perhaps why it’s been politically successful. Instead of announcing a complete ban on all semi-automatic guns, the Government chose to make a number of exemptions, which makes the ban less radical than that implemented by John Howard in Australia following the Port Arthur massacre.

This is explained best by the Herald’s Jared Savage: “Exempted from the ban in New Zealand are semi-automatic .22 rifles (with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds), as well as semi-automatic or pump action shotguns with internal magazines (holding no more than five rounds)” – see: Why the gun ban was a smart compromise but needs to go further.

He explains the logic and political sense in this: “This is also a sensible move. These firearms are regularly used by farmers for pest control, as well as hunters. Banning them would cause great unrest in rural communities in particular, so politically speaking, the exemption makes it hard for critics to argue legitimate firearms owners are being unfairly targeted. I suspect most won’t complain.”

Savage argues that “banning dangerous weapons while reaching out to those who will be most affected – will go a long way to unite most people behind the changes.”

Stuff’s political editor, Tracy Watkins, agrees that a politically adept balance has been struck in what she calls “one deft move” by the Prime Minister to avoid either being too radical or moderate in reform – see: Jacinda Ardern’s gun reforms needed to strike a delicate balance – and they do.

She says it means Ardern will “be criticised by those at the opposite ends of the gun debate as not going far enough by some, and too far by others.” But Watkins argues that the Government needed to find a compromise that would keep some of the gun lobby on side: “Ardern’s challenge was in striking a balance between the more lethal and MSSA weapons, and the types of shotguns popular among duckshooters and hunters, which the tide of public opinion could have easily swept into the list of guns that should be banned.”

This wasn’t just about electoral calculations, but also ensuring that the reforms would actually result in compliance from gun owners: “the risks of a backlash and black market from non-compliance are also factors that have to be weighed up.”

It’s therefore of great interest that groups such as Federated Farmers, the Police Association, Rural Security, Fish and Game and Trade Me have come out in support of the changes. For example, Police Association president Chris Cahill has said: “It’s a good mix of reforms that balance the practical requirements of firearm owners in New Zealand with the need to protect society, we’re very pleased” – see RNZ’s Wide support for government’s move to tighten gun laws.

For detail from a hunter about why this is the right decision, see Lew Stoddart’s Gun law reform strikes a fair balance. He is full of praise for the Government’s decision: “The government’s gun law reform package is notable because it balances three factors that in previous reforms have proven irreconcilable: it removes the most dangerous firearms from legal circulation immediately; it does so without being a knee-jerk overreaction; and it does so quickly, without extravagant cost, and without much legal vulnerability.”

For Stoddart, the key is that changes to the legislation are “based on power, action type, and magazine capacity”, thereby allowing for some less-dangerous semi-automatics to be exempted from the ban. For example, guns that only have a calibre barrel of 0.22 or less, and which can only hold up to 10 rounds, are still allowed. And Stoddart says: “The object of the reforms is to get the largest number of most-dangerous firearms out of circulation in the shortest possible time with the least hassle, and the only way that works is with the consent of firearms owners.”

For more on the technical details of the ban, see Stuff’s Q&A: A closer look at New Zealand’s new weapons ban.

Inside the Government, this appears to have been a carefully designed compromise to keep both politicians and gun owners on side. This is explained well by Richard Harman: “The decision to ban military-style semi-automatic firearms yesterday does not go as far as Australia did in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre and was not the first preference of the Greens. Instead, it is a political compromise designed to get the vote of NZ First and National when it is presented to Parliament in a fortnight. What the Prime Minister clearly wanted to avoid was provoking a full-on fight with the rural community and the gun lobby” – see: The gun control compromise.

Harman says that he “understands the Greens wanted all semi-automatic firearms banned. That would have been consistent with their manifesto for the last election”. But this more radical ban would have been opposed by both New Zealand First and the National Party. Therefore “Ardern knew that if she wanted bipartisan support for a ban, she would have to reject the Greens policy”.

The international news media has reported surprise at the “lightning speed” and ease with which the New Zealand Government has been able to achieve this initial reform. The contrast with fights over gun control in the United States has been particularly highlighted. For the best item explaining to an international audience why New Zealand was able to push this through, see Rick Noack and Shibani Mahtani’s Washington Post story, New Zealand just banned military-style firearms. Here’s why the US can’t.

Similarly, see Matt Kwong’s Canadian report, New Zealand promised and delivered a gun ban. Here’s why the US can’t do the same.

All of the congratulations and hailing of the Government’s success doesn’t mean that there are no criticisms at all. Most importantly, the various gun exemptions still have some people worried. And there’s continued questioning about how much farmers really need these types of guns anyhow – especially when farmers cite “animal welfare” justifications. One answer is that it’s about the slaughter of bobby calves.

One writer, from a family of gun-owners, says: “The whole issue is so obnoxious to me that I can hardly write about it, but unfortunately it’s a regular part of the dairy farming process. A year or so ago dairy farmers were banned from ending their bobby (male) calves lives with hammers or bits of wood. Essentially the calves would be clubbed to death. Thankfully semi-automatic guns are now the accepted method. Firearms make this abhorrent job easier for both the calf and the farmer” – see: I’m from a farming family: Owning a gun isn’t a right.

And how well will the buy-back scheme even work? The Government is projecting that the scheme will cost up to $200 million. Lobby groups, say it could be much more, based on the fact that “Military style semi-automatics can cost from $200 to more than $10,000 and there are at least 15,000 registered in New Zealand” – see Maiki Sherman’s Firearm buyback scheme could cost $500m, twice the Government’s estimate, lobbyist group says.

Already some gun-owners are apparently indicating that they won’t hand over their now-illegal guns. According to one news report, “The Gunshack owner Peter Watson said while he was not personally affected by the ban, he had spoken to at least 10 recreational shooters who said they would refuse to hand over their weapons” – see Jennifer Eder’sGun shop owner warns recreational shooters won’t buy in to buy-back gun control legislation.

One gun lobbyist, Mike Loder, has even written an “open letter” questioning whether the government should really compel “shooters, in a supposedly free nation, to hand in private property on the promise of later compensation” – see Tom Pullar-Strecker’s NRA calls for stop to NZ’s ‘socialist disarmament’ alongside appeal for donations.

Another gun lobbyist, Bill O’Leary of the Deerstalkers Association, is campaigning to have compensation amounts determined by negotiation on a one-by-one basis: “It would mean every firearm would have to sit on a table, and on one side would be the person from the government and on the other would be the owner” – see Rob Stock’s The ban of military-style semi-automatics will cost millions – here is how the Australians did it.

Similarly, another gun-owner is reported today saying “If we hand in our firearms without assurances that compensation will be appropriate, what cost $20,000 will suddenly turn into $5000 of compensation” – see Cecile Meier’s Gun owner happy to hand in rifle for free, others say law change is causing anxiety.

Although there are obviously a variety of responses from gun-owners, another one says: “With the stroke of a pen, the Government has made some of my firearms illegal… I am anxious that the police may turn up at my house and seize my property in front of my whole neighbourhood. I am losing sleep.”

There are also a number of criticisms about the legislative process that the Government is attempting to take. The best arguments against this have been put by the Otago Daily Times’ Mike Houlahan, who says that haste in lawmaking can lead to bad law, which might even include loopholes, making the new rules less effective – see: Composure needed before creating new laws.

Finally, regardless of laws, are you personally complicit in helping the arms industry and the production of guns? Rob Stock explains, How to go weapons-free in your KiwiSaver portfolio.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Jacinda Ardern has led the way in how she’s responded to the Christchurch terrorist atrocity. The prime minister has emphasised the need to come together and to not allow the actions of a terrorist to divide New Zealand any further. She has laid the blame for Friday’s massacre firmly at the feet of the perpetrator, rejecting the idea that his beliefs are representative of New Zealanders (while at the same time signalling to people in this country that as a society we must question and challenge attitudes and structures that contribute to intolerance and hatred).

Ardern has won praise from across the political spectrum for her measured, compassionate approach. Others have not been so conciliatory, and the search for answers as to why the attack took place will be a difficult process, with many causes being singled out for blame.

My column on Tuesday dealt with the question of whether our political leaders have, in some part, played a role in increasing hate or intolerance – see: Politicians’ words under scrutiny after Christchurch terror attacks. Similarly, Hamish Rutherford addressed this issue in his article, Mainstream political policy may offer a home for racist views. And in Parliament yesterday Green MP Golriz Ghahraman challenged her fellow parliamentarians over having “fanned the flames of division” in the past.

There is a danger in going too carelessly down this path, however. In fact, caution is advisable. If the blame-game becomes too toxic then, not only will it become counterproductive to the search for answers, but it will poison New Zealand politics and society (something the terrorist seemed very keen to do). Knee-jerk levelling of blame has the potential to be divisive, precisely at a time when unity and harmony is required (and mostly being achieved).

In two now notorious examples of finger-pointing internationally, Australian senator Fraser Anning blamed the terrorist attacks on Muslims themselves, while in the US Chelsea Clinton copped the blame due to a recent statement she made opposing antisemitism.

At home, targets for blame have ranged from politicians, intelligence services, rightwing and leftwing commentators (everyone from Mike Hosking to Chris Trotter), free-speech advocates, firearm sellers, social media and the prejudice of the New Zealand public, but rarely is evidence offered to support the contention of culpability for this atrocity.

Debates over all of these issues, and many more, need to be had. We need answers for why this attack took place. And we must address the fact that racism and religious intolerance is a daily reality in New Zealand.

But caution is also needed. It’s worth taking heed of the warning issued by Kenan Malik, one of Britain’s leading leftwing public intellectuals, who wrote immediately in the wake of the Christchurch attacks that “the dead deserve better” than a rush into “name-calling and invective” – see his short Guardian column, Do not let raw anger cloud our judgment after Christchurch.

Malik argues that debate and examination is absolutely necessary: “The issues raised by the barbarous terror are many and urgent – the rise of the far right and how to combat it; how mainstream commentators talk of Muslims and immigration and whiteness; the boundaries of free speech; the regulation of social media. And so on. I will no doubt have my say on these issues in the coming days.”

However, this does not seem to be occurring in a healthy, productive manner: “What has been depressing, though, has been the way that much of the discussion has degenerated into name-calling and invective. The dead of Christchurch have seemingly become a stage on which every contemporary debate from Brexit to the politics of identity is played out. The rawness of anger inevitably clouds judgment.”

He concludes by saying, “To say that the dead deserve better is to say that we should be better in the way we engage with the living, with each other. And we should.”

Another British commentator, Maajid Nawaz, who is a Muslim and a former parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats, writes in even stronger terms that “Radical Islamists and radical leftists have seized on the Christchurch tragedy to push their own hateful agendas” – see his column from The Times newspaper: The New Zealand mosque massacre blame game is out of control.

Nawaz argues that this type of politicisation risks falling into the “trap” that the terrorist set to create division, chaos, and to pit the political left against the political right. He also fears the blame-game will lead to a shutting down of debate.

Nawaz is worth reading at length: “In my youth, as an angry 15-year-old Muslim witnessing the Bosnia genocide, I once succumbed to this temptation and promoted extreme Islamism myself for a few years. I know what giving in to hate feels like, and I know the lasting damage it can cause. But that is exactly the reaction that extremists want, and exactly why it must be resisted with all our might. So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target.”

In another column, Nawaz argues, “Now is not the time to settle political scores. Now is the time to reflect, reach out and respond with mercy from a position of moral authority” – see: New Zealand shootings: Muslims are fearful and hurting but we must not give in to hate.

Also in Britain, Claire Fox has written that “One of the most distasteful aspects of this was the casual way that within hours of the outrage, various conservative commentators were being openly named as indirectly responsible for the New Zealand massacre” – see her column in The Telegraph: Why I am so disturbed by how the Christchurch massacre is being used for political point-scoring (paywalled).

Fox says that there’s nothing wrong with debate and analysis, but this should not be motivated by pre-existing political agendas: “Don’t get me wrong: I don’t expect a moratorium on politics as we mourn. I am political and appreciate that we want to make sense of what seems such a senseless act, especially as the killer himself framed his actions in a rambling ‘political manifesto’. But a rush to use the event to push one’s own political agenda surely displays bad faith.”

After condemning the “white supremacism” behind the terrorism as well as “scaremongering about refugees” and other xenophobic ills, Fox implores that our responses don’t just lead to the suppression of debate and ideas: “I also hate the tendency to use a massacre to slander opponents or demand particular opinions are censored. Whatever comes from the New Zealand atrocity, we should be better than that. After all, the underlying message of the terrorist was that he intended to fracture political debate and divide opinion to cause a toxic virus of hostility. Let’s make sure he doesn’t succeed.”

Similar points are made by Brendan O’Neill at the Spiked-Online website. He himself points the finger at various political commentators and activists: “The blame game they’ve been playing in the aftermath of the racist mass murder in New Zealand has been ghoulish and deeply disturbing. The bodies of the 50 murdered Muslims were barely cold before various observers, activists and leftists were naming and shaming those people who they think ‘laid the ground’ for this atrocity. And it apparently includes everyone from alt-right agitators to any mainstream newspaper columnist who has raised so much as a peep of criticism about radical Islam” – see: New Zealand’s ghoulish opportunists.

Writing for The Australian, columnist Janet Albrechtsen suggested that Fraser Anning was far from the only political actor exploiting the tragedy for their own “narrow-minded, illiberal political agendas” – see: Be wary of blame and let’s not shut down debate (paywalled).

Albrechtsen argued that rightwing voices were being unfairly targeted, and political freedoms threatened: “Those playing blame games with politics are trying to paint as mainstream what happens on the fringes of politics. That attempt to tar the centre-Right with the lunacy of the far-Right is wicked, politically driven and wrong in fact. Working in reverse, the blame-gamers are also trying to present entirely legitimate debates about immigration, integration, the self-evident clash of cultures and the rise of political Islam as fringe discussions that must be shut down. The day after terrorist attacks in Christchurch, an editor at The Saturday Paper called for laws to ‘penalise media outlets, and figures that consistently promote fear and hatred’ and ‘robust laws against the spread of hate speech’.”

Here in New Zealand, Herald columnist Jon Stokes also observes that in the wake of the terrorist atrocity, “There is a move to shut down the voices and ideas of others, to try to homogenise ideas and perspectives” – see: Ideas should be challenged not shut down.

Stokes argues against suppressing too much of the information about the terrorist event and even the terrorist himself, and he also says that we need wider and healthier political debate in general: “The evil unleashed on Friday, March 15 showed me that those silenced or suppressed voices will always find a home, and an outlet to ensure they are heard. The way forward is light, not darkness, it is away with anonymity and facelessness. It is a time of ownership of our ideas and views, and embracing tolerance and understanding.”

Writing today, Karl du Fresne finds it difficult to reconcile two very different narratives that have emerged about New Zealand and the terrorist attacks. On the one hand “New Zealand reacted with a genuine and overwhelming outpouring of shock, grief and anguish”, but according to an “alternative narrative, we are a hateful nation of racists, white supremacists and Islamophobes” – see: Some would paint us as a nation of hateful racists – that’s not the real NZ.

Certainly, there are politicians and activists elsewhere who will attempt to paint a picture of hate in New Zealand for their own ends – something we are seeing in Turkey at the moment.

In this regard, it’s worth reading the views of Massey University’s Rouben Azizian, who is a professor in the Centre of Defence and Security Study: “It is very dangerous when they use this rhetoric of us against them and them against us. They have to be very careful because they can indeed incite the feelings of a clash of civilisations, when this is a clash involving one idiot, a crazy, brainwashed person against innocent Muslim people” – see Rob Mitchell’s Christchurch shooting: Erdogan comments endanger bond built on blood and battle.

Finally, there’s a case to be made that finger-pointing is almost entirely redundant given that there was a sole terrorist involved, and he was “not one of us”, echoing Jacinda Ardern’s “This is not us” refrain. The case is put by Chris Trotter, who says “What happened at the Linwood and Al Noor mosques was horrific, but it wasn’t our doing. As we begin the long journey towards recovery, it is vitally important that we keep that fact squarely before us. New Zealand is a good place. New Zealanders are good people. We are not responsible for Brenton Tarrant’s dreadful crime. This is not us” – see: What Happened Here?

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.

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the killing of Philippine radio journalist Joey Llana near Legazpi City, at the southeastern tip of the island of Luzon, and has called on the authorities to do everything possible to find those responsible.

Joey Llana, 38, was gunned down yesterday as he drove to work at Radio DwZR in Legazpi City, where he hosted a morning radio programme, reports the Paris-based global media freedom watchdog RSF.

Local police said he was hit at least 14 times in the head and body by shots fired by five unidentified gunmen.

The police have not yet identified a motive but a relative said Llana had recently received death threats, which suggested that he had been targeted in connection with his work.

President Rodrigo Duterte’s spokesman, Harry Roque, condemned the murder and said it would be investigated by the Presidential Task Force on Media Security.

“We condemn radio journalist Joey Llana’s murder in the strongest terms as it is a serious press freedom violation, and we welcome the decision by the president’s office to open an immediate investigation and its declared desire to render justice to the victim,” a statement from RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk said.

-Partners-

“The Philippines, which is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists in Asia, must do everything possible to effectively combat violence against the media and impunity for this violence.”

Third journalist killed
If the initial suspicions are confirmed, Llana will be the third journalist to have been murdered this year in the Philippines in connection with their work, reports RSF.

Newspaper journalist Dennis Denora was slain in a similar fashion in the southern province of Davao del Norte in June, as was radio show host Edmund Sestoso in the central province of Negros Oriental in May.

At least six other journalists have been killed in connection with their work since Duterte, who is prone to virulent verbal attacks on the media, was elected president in 2016.

The Philippines fell six places in RSF’s 2018 World Press Freedom Index and is now ranked 133rd out of 180 countries.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz