Report by Radio New Zealand.

Algerian democracy activist Ahmed Zaoui, a New Zealand citizen, has been charged with subversion by police in his homeland.

Zaoui was arrested at gunpoint three weeks ago, after holding a political meeting at his home.

He had released a statement on behalf of the Islamic Salvation Front calling for peaceful political dialogue, amid the current economic and political crisis.

Zaoui’s New Zealand lawyer, Deborah Manning, said he was a former elected member of parliament in his own country and was being “arbitrarily detained for his political opinion”.

“We have learned in recent days that Mr Zaoui has been charged with subversion, under a new law in Algeria… and has been transferred to Koléa Prison. This prison is known for its overcrowding and harsh conditions,” she said.

“Over the weekend, I submitted a request to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, requesting them to make an urgent appeal to the Algerian Authorities, on the basis that his detention is arbitrary (as it is for political reasons) and due to concerns for Mr Zaoui’s health.”

Zaoui was a diabetic, and his family – who were only allowed to see him for 15 minutes every two weeks – feared for his health, she said.

Recognised as a refugee by New Zealand 20 years ago, he entered Algeria on a New Zealand passport.

“Mr Zaoui returned to Algeria to be with family in recent years, as the political situation appeared to be settling,” Manning said.

“He was planning to return to New Zealand later this year and to live between Algeria and New Zealand.”

His arrest came amid a recent crackdown on political activists and journalists, including arrests and detentions.

“His arrest was not expected and has been a shock to all,” Manning said.

“Just days before Mr Zaoui’s arrest, the UN expert on the right to peaceful assembly and association made a statement at the end of a 10-day official visit to Algeria, calling on the government to allow peaceful assembly and association.”

The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was offering “advice and assistance”, Manning said.

“Mr Zaoui, and his family are grateful for the support they have received from New Zealand since his arrest.”

They wanted him to be released, so he could return to live in New Zealand with his family, she said.

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

This weekend’s visit to Australia by New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins speaks volumes about major changes underway in New Zealand foreign policy.

Hipkins is flying to Brisbane – Australia’s third-biggest city and home to around 100,000 New Zealand citizens – to meet with his counterpart, Anthony Albanese.

The trip’s significance comes in part from its timing. Hipkins is visiting just before Anzac Day on 25 April. On this day each year, Australia and New Zealand both remember the role played and losses suffered by the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (or Anzac for short) in World War I, and by their forces in other conflicts.

In advance of the New Zealand PM’s travel, a new partnership called ‘Plan Anzac’ has been unveiled which promises ‘sustained cooperation’ between the Australian and New Zealand militaries. The arrangement covers a wide range of areas that include ‘strategic engagement, capability, training, readiness and common personnel issues’.

Hipkins’ visit is also expected to serve as an occasion for Australia to unveil a more generous pathway to citizenship for the near million-strong population of New Zealanders living in Australia – an attempt at putting to bed disquiet from New Zealanders who feel Australia has not upheld traditional Anzac ‘mateship’.

There is no better time of year for Canberra and Wellington to send signals of unity.

And the bonhomie comes as New Zealand increasingly follows in Australia’s foreign policy footsteps.

The most recent example of the alignment came in the acceptance by both Albanese and Hipkins of an invitation to the NATO leaders’ summit in Lithuania this July.

The joint RSVP was almost certainly coordinated between Canberra and Wellington.

After NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg publicly invited the pair to attend the meeting a fortnight ago, Hipkins initially remained non-committal, telling reporters he hadn’t decided on whether he would attend and pointedly noting his busy schedule during New Zealand’s election year.

Media reports surfaced soon afterwards that claimed Albanese would be a no-show in Vilnius.

The reporting was not initially denied.

Albanese already has a packed international calendar this year. The Australian PM perhaps thought that his guest attendance at the G7 in Hiroshima and hosting of a Quad (Australia, India, Japan and the United States) leaders’ summit in Sydney next month would be more than enough to satisfy US and European leaders.

If Albanese himself was planning on skipping NATO, this also explained why Hipkins showed a marked lack of enthusiasm.

But criticism by political rivals and commentators – and perhaps some pressure behind the scenes – appeared to change Albanese’s mind and by Monday this week, the Australian leader was saying he ‘would be very pleased to accept’ the NATO invitation.

Yesterday, Hipkins announced that he would also be heading to Vilnius.

In other words, Australia led – and New Zealand followed.

The countries are also becoming closer in other ways.

Most notably, New Zealand defence minister Andrew Little signalled last month that Wellington was interested in joining a second ‘pillar’ of the AUKUS arrangements that focuses on cybertechnology.

A week later, Little held talks in Wellington with his Australian counterpart, Richard Marles.

Little was typically circumspect about the substance of the talks and played down the AUKUS element.

However, Marles noted ‘alignment’ between Australia and New Zealand, adding ‘it’s really important that we are working as closely together as possible’.

The pair’s meeting came not long after a visit to New Zealand by Kurt Campbell, the White House’s Indo-Pacific coordinator – illustrating how pressures and interests from further afield are also at play, a factor reinforced by the NATO invitation.

Then there is the small matter of TikTok.

Both Australia and New Zealand have issued bans over the past month – and surprisingly, this time New Zealand appeared to be the leader, not the follower.

In March, New Zealand’s Parliamentary Service effectively banned use of the smartphone app, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, by MPs and staffers who accessed Parliament’s network.

The move followed a directive (issued in November 2022, although only publicly revealed months later) by New Zealand’s Defence Force ordering its personnel to delete TikTok from their devices.

For its part, Australia waited until earlier this month to make its decision– but it then issued a far more sweeping ban that prohibited the use of TikTok on devices used by employees at all Australian federal government departments and agencies.

It was also reported that more than half of Australia’s federal government agencies had already banned TikTok.

This suggested Australia was the leader after all.

If alignment is a keyword in the 2023 version of the Australia-New Zealand relationship, another is ‘interoperability’.

Little spoke of the need for a ‘seamless sort of interoperability’ with Australia after taking on the defence portfolio earlier this year – and the word is also used repeatedly to justify the new ‘Plan Anzac’ military partnership.

Expect to hear more about the need for New Zealand to harmonise its capabilities with those of Australia – especially when the results of New Zealand’s Defence Policy Review are soon announced.

The outcome of the Defence Policy Review is also likely to serve as a justification for New Zealand to announce greater military spending.

It remains to be seen how China will react to New Zealand’s increasing willingness to fall in line with Australia – and with NATO.

Trade repercussions seem unlikely, although cannot be ruled out if New Zealand becomes deeply intertwined with Aukus.

China and Australia are currently in a healing phase over trade, after Beijing effectively offered to settle a dispute with Canberra over the tariffs China imposed in 2020 on Australia’s barley exports.

In the short term, any displeasure from China at New Zealand’s decision to take a more Australia-friendly path is more likely to come in the form of ‘playing hard to get’.

A notable omission from Hipkins’ travel announcements this week was any confirmation of a trip to China.

In her final months in office, Jacinda Ardern indicated she was seeking to visit China early in 2023 – a plan that Hipkins initially reaffirmed, but later walked back.

In the announcement of Chris Hipkins’ travel plans this week, the Prime Minister’s office did add that the Government was ‘continuing to pursue a trade focused trip to China later in the year’.

But for Hipkins to visit China, he will need an invitation.

And that invitation may have just become that much harder to obtain.

After all, Chris Hipkins is choosing Brisbane over Beijing.

At least for now.

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s geopolitical analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. He is currently working on a PhD on New Zealand’s relations with the Gulf states.

Political Roundup: Nicky Hager strikes a win for media freedom and democracy

Do New Zealand state spies unlawfully surveil the government’s political critics? Do they spy on critical journalists? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. And yesterday the government domestic security agency was forced to apologise for one instance when they were caught spying on investigative journalist Nicky Hager.

The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (SIS) has paid Hager $66,400 in compensation and legal fees for breaching his privacy, and made an extraordinary apology to him. In return, Hager has agreed not to take the Government to court.

The payment and apology were for unlawfully obtaining two months of Hager’s phone records in an attempt to uncover the sources Hager used in writing his 2011 book Other People’s Wars. The publication was about New Zealand’s involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The book focused on the role of New Zealand military and intelligence activity that caused the deaths of civilians in Operation Burnham, and was based on information obtained from confidential sources.

Hager’s win is not just a victory for him personally, but more generally for freedom of the press and the ongoing vigilance against state authoritarianism.

Dirty politics from security services?

It was the NZ Defence Force that sought to discover who had provided Hager with the information for his book. They apparently suspected a particular Defence Force officer, but failed to find any evidence in their search of the employee’s home and mobile phone records. So they then requested that the SIS obtain Hager’s personal phone records on the basis of the journalist being involved in “espionage”.

The SIS obtained Hager’s phone records, but the information proved useless in helping the defence forces find his source. Hager suspected that he was under surveillance, and when he officially requested information about this from SIS director Rebecca Kitteridge she refused to confirm or deny anything.

Hager took the issue to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, which oversees the SIS as well as the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). The SIS was forced to confirm the spying against Hager, but Kitteridge denied any wrongdoing, argued the surveillance was justified on the basis of Hager being involved in potential “espionage” and because he was prejudicing New Zealand’s national security.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security ruled in Hager’s favour. Three years later the SIS has finally agreed to compensation and a proper apology.

The Extraordinary apology from the spies

Yesterday the SIS issued a statement that is worth quoting at length: “Investigative journalists such as Mr Hager play an important role in society, including to provide an additional check on executive functions and powers. The role of Mr Hager is considerably more difficult given his subject matter of expertise and the difficulties of obtaining information which is protected by various and numerous confidentiality mechanisms. NZSIS recognises that its actions in 2012 could have resulted in a chilling effect on such important work. Accordingly, NZSIS apologises unreservedly for breaching Mr Hager’s rights”.

In addition to the apology, the SIS said, “We recognise the important role that journalists play in a free, open and democratic society – the very society the New Zealand intelligence agencies exist to uphold.”

One of Hager’s lawyers, Steven Price, responded to say that “it is nice to see this recognition by the NZSIS of the importance of journalism to our democracy… Journalists need to be able to convey to the public important information from well-placed sources. That process should not be undermined by intelligence officials trying to unlawfully ferret out those sources.”

There is a need to have investigative journalism, and the media in general, as a properly functioning mechanism to hold the powerful to account, including the defence forces. This case shows the SIS have clearly undermined that mechanism.

Hager’s other lawyer, Felix Geiringer rightly said the decision was an “important result for journalism”. He argued that “Our intelligence services are given substantial powers for use to protect New Zealand from harm… Those powers cannot be used to go after a journalist’s sources just because the government does not like what that journalist is saying.”

It should go without saying that journalists depend on being able to assure their sources that they will remain confidential. And the state shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in this by using its immense powers of subterfuge.

Will the state spies reform themselves?

What happened to Hager was dangerous for democracy, and should never have happened. But it’s not clear that it won’t happen again.

The SIS is claiming that it has reformed itself and is now more careful with following the law and will be more transparent. But there are already signs that they are failing to live up to this.

The spy agency claims to have established a new policy for how they deal with the work of journalists. But Hager’s lawyers point out that the SIS is refusing to release that policy. Geiringer says: “The NZSIS needs a clear policy stating when the use of its powers against a journalist would be justified. There also needs to be a rule that only someone sufficiently senior in the organisation can make such a decision. And there is no basis for keeping such a policy secret.”

Hager argues: “The NZSIS needs a clear policy stating when the use of its powers against a journalist would be justified.”

Hager’s lawyers argue that their negotiations with the SIS suggest “that nothing had really changed in the internal culture of the NZSIS”.

They also point out that things might be about to get worse. Geiringer said yesterday that “there is a Bill before Parliament which would prevent our courts from reviewing decisions of intelligence services to withhold documents on national security grounds.” This is a problem, because “External oversight is essential in a democracy”.

Rottenness in the state?

This isn’t the first time Hager has received apologies and compensation from the state. He also got a “substantial” settlement from the Police due to their unlawful raid of his Wellington home after the publication of his book Dirty Politics.

Commenting on the latest state settlement, the chair of the Civil Liberties Council, Thomas Beagle tweeted yesterday, “So now both the Police and SIS have had to apologise to Nicky Hager for misuse of their powers against him. There is something very rotten here.”

Others have commented on the lack of personal accountability from those in the Defence Forces and SIS. The fact that SIS head Rebecca Kitteridge has since received a promotion to become deputy head of the Public Service Commission will also rankle.

There is a concern that some agencies of the state are becoming too politicised. And when these institutions are vested with such strong power, then this can be open to abuse that diminishes democracy. With publicity about the SIS’s abuse of the law, hopefully there will be a greater awareness of the need for more scrutiny of these institutions and this latest incident will serve to create a chilling effect on their propensity to over-reach when dealing with intimidation of the media.

Unfortunately, politicians have so far been entirely silent on the Hager controversy. But there is a need for politicians of all persuasions to come out in condemnation of what has occurred. Regardless of what anyone might think of Hager’s work, reasonable people should be able to see that there is something rotten about the way that the police and the spies have acted in these cases against a journalist. We should all be uncomfortable that someone who is seeking to expose corruption and misuse of authority by the powerful gets treated in this way.

The good news, of course, is that the payout from the SIS will now fund Hager to continue producing his important public interest journalism.

Further reading on SIS unlawful activity and national security

Thomas Manch (Stuff): Nicky Hager receives $66,000 settlement from Security Intelligence Service over phone record spying
RNZ: NZSIS agrees to pay Nicky Hager $66,400 over phone records privacy breach
1News: Journalist Nicky Hager to get $66k settlement from spy agency
BusinessDesk: Nicky Hager gets $66,000 for spy agency’s unlawful activity
No Right Turn: The SIS: spying on the government’s political critics
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Latest SIS case against Hager a reminder to the woke the secret police are not your friend
Thomas Manch (Stuff): New Zealand’s terror threat level drops from ‘medium’ to ‘low’
Kurt Bayer (Herald): New Zealand’s national terror threat level drops for first time since 2019

Other items of interest and importance today

THREE WATERS
Peter Dunne: When sorry seems to be the hardest word
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): What’s at stake and what happens next in Three Waters constitutional spat (paywalled)
Oliver Hartwich (Herald): Three Waters bill, Covid fund allocation may be legal but not in spirit of democracy
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Full steam ahead on Three Waters reforms: bill before Christmas (paywalled)
Thomas Cranmer: Questions remain over the appointment of Tuku Morgan

POLITICAL FINANCE, DONATIONS TRIALS
Toby Morris (Spinoff): It’s time we closed the political donation backdoor
George Block (Herald): National and Labour political donations trial: Chinese-NZ businessman, brothers sentenced to community work
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Businessmen given community detention for unlawful donations to National Party
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): National the winner as donations trio sentenced
Jonty Dine (RNZ): Three businessmen guilty of political donations deception avoid prison
Maria Slade (NBR): Political donations trio sentenced to community service (paywalled)

PARLIAMENT, VOTING AGE
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): National MPs campaigning for votes with Kiwis in Australia on parliamentary-funded travel
Sam Sachdeva (Newsoom): ‘Not achieved’: Civil society grades Hipkins on open government work
Henry Cooke: A defence of the gotcha question
Mike Hosking (Herald): Is the Government no longer trying? (paywalled)
Michael Neilson and Chris Knox (Herald): Poll shows what Kiwis think about lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 (paywalled)
Tom Hunt (Stuff): 16-year-olds will vote in 2025 local body elections, Wellington councillor and mayor reckon
Thomas Brocherie (Stuff): Even as a 14-year-old, it’s easy to tell my generation is worried
The Standard: What Is Labour’s Purpose This Term?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS; FINNISH PM MEETS ARDERN
Bridie Witton (Stuff): The not-so-subtle sexism that followed Finland’s Sanna Marin from Helsinki to Auckland
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): Why are some media organisations ok with such unashamed, casual sexism?
Anna Rawhiti-Connell (Spinoff): Ten things you can say about Finland’s prime minister that don’t use the word ‘party’
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Finnish PM Sanna Marin wants to go ‘next level’ with New Zealand, as she rallies against autocrats
RNZ: Jacinda Ardern and Finland PM Sanna Marin hold media briefing
1News: Finland PM Marin meets Ardern – ‘Our countries are aligned’
Eva Corlett (Guardian): Jacinda Ardern and Sanna Marin dismiss suggestion their age and gender was reason for meeting
1News: Ardern pushes back at ‘similar age’ question in Finland PM conference
Jamie Ensor and Isobel Ewing (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern hits back at suggestion she met with Finnish leader Sanna Marin due to similar age
Don Rowe (Spinoff): A brief look at the harm Australia’s 501 policy has caused
Sarah Robson (RNZ): When New Zealanders get into trouble overseas

ECONOMY, COST OF LIVING
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): Reserve Bank just landed final blow to Labour’s election hopes
Gordon Campbell: On the gaslighting about inflation
Daniel Smith (Stuff): ‘We made our children poorer’: How a previous generation became rich and left their kids to foot the bill
Nona Pelletier (RNZ): Reserve Bank seeks public feedback as part of monetary policy review
Jenny Ruth (BusinessDesk): RBNZ wants housing removed from its remit (paywalled)
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): The hidden inflation trap of an ageing population
Chlöe Swarbrick (Herald): Let’s create a fairer fiscal system for all New Zealanders
David Hargreaves (Interest): ANZ chief economist says RBNZ ‘deserves kudos for not shirking their responsibilities’
Rob Stock (Stuff): Missed payments on home loans rise as household costs increase, Centrix says
Cameron Smith (Herald): Number of Kiwis missing personal and home loan repayments increasing (paywalled)
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): Consumer loan arrears on the rise
RNZ: Demand for personal and vehicle loans increasing sharply – Centrix
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): New survey shows parents are cutting back spending, under considerable strain due to skyrocketing cost of living

EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Fair Pay Agreements: Bargaining process begins after passing of controversial legislation
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): Fair Pay Agreements: Hospitality workers to make first application to start negotiations (paywalled)
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Fair Pay Agreements: Bargaining process begins after passing of controversial legislation
Isaac Davison (Herald): Stuff strike: Reporters to walk off job, picket offices today
RNZ: National Party holds ground on raising superannuation age to 67
Trent Doyle (Newshub): Unionised Stuff journalists protest nationwide against latest pay offer
RNZ: Business confidence continues to drop – ANZ survey
David Hargreaves (Interest): ANZ: ‘The strain is showing for Kiwi businesses’
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Cost increases remain ‘relentless’ for New Zealand businesses, employment intentions negative for first time since 2020 – ANZ
Nicholas Pointon (NBR): Business sentiment plunges to ‘dire levels’ – ANZ (paywalled)
Fiona Rotherham (NBR): Why Sir John Key is joining the board of Kiwi company Oritain (paywalled)
Herald: Young New Zealanders want Māori language, tikanga and Te Tiriti principles honoured at work
RNZ: Foodstuffs stores to trial new facial recognition cameras
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Goodbye, home phone line: Disputes scheme prepares for more complaints about copper withdrawal

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
Brent Edwards (NBR): Government’s olive branch to farmers over sequestration
Richard Harman: Government makes concessions to farmers on methane (paywalled)
Keith Woodford (Interest): Moving forward on methane levies
Rebecca Howard (BusinesDesk): Government backs down on sequestration for emissions trading scheme (paywalled)
 Fieldays agenda (paywalled)
Karen Rutherford (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern heckled at Fieldays as Government unveils projects to cut emissions
Gerhard Uys (Stuff): Government will bring native forests into the emissions trading scheme
Riley Kennedy (BusinessDesk): Govt reveals plan to grow forestry (paywalled)
Guy Trafford (Interest): The source of the confusion
Tina Morrison (Stuff): Fonterra and farmers risk not being able to get debt funding from banks if they don’t meet sustainability expectations
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Bumper export earnings year predicted for primary industry against backdrop of inflation
Brent Edwards (NBR): Farmers might be pessimistic but export revenue still rising (paywalled)
RNZ: US court orders ban on New Zealand exports of several fish species
Alexa Cook (Newshub): New Zealand seafood industry says US import ban on fish caught in Māui dolphin habitat not needed

HOUSING
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Falling house prices all bad news for Labour, Fitch says
RNZ: Falling house prices: Wellington leads with 15.9 percent drop in November – CoreLogic
Miriam Bell (Stuff): By the numbers: Here’s what the latest update tells us about NZ’s housing market downturn
Greg Ninness (Interest): Average value of NZ homes down $84,369 from March peak
Newshub: Property prices continue downward slide, Porirua values plunge 4.7 percent in a month
Anne Gibson (Herald): Six reasons why house prices could continue falling: ANZ revises 18% drop to 22%
Brent Melville (BusinessDesk): Home buyers paddle, as mortgage rates hit high water mark (paywalled)
Jonathan Killick (Stuff): No more nimbys? What new housing bill might mean for developers
BusinessDesk: Housing consents down 12%, as sector faces higher build costs (paywalled)
Greg Ninness (Interest): Big drop in the number of new homes consented in October
Benn Bathgate (Stuff): Businesses’ call for ‘immediate resolution’ to Rotorua’s MSD motels issue
Robin Martin (RNZ): Homeowners turn to motorhomes to avoid unruly Kāinga Ora tenants

HEALTH
Adam Burns (RNZ): Parents refusing vaccinated donor blood for baby should consider decisions carefully – Little
William Hewett (Newshub): Christopher Luxon won’t commit to Māori health outcome target
RNZ: Primary mental health care programme misses target by thousands
Hannah Martin (Stuff): Health system ‘desperately’ needing doctors won’t let new grads start til 2023 – union
Chris Lynch: “The environment we work in is killing us” ED nurse writes powerful letter to Andrew Little
Tom Taylor (RNZ): Urgent care clinics under strain
Herald Editorial: GP nurses pay parity puzzling (paywalled)
1News: Amount low-income Kiwis can claim for dental treatment increases
Helen Harvey (Taranaki Daily News): Petition to drop age of bowel cancer screening delivered to Green MP Dr Elizabeth Kerekere at Parliament
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): Objectors to supermarket pharmacies ‘disgruntled competitors’, high court told
Georgina Campbell (Herald): More women come forward with ‘nightmare’ birth experiences

COVID-19
Brent Edwards (NBR): Health response to pandemic no longer a political issue (paywalled)
Jamie Morton (Herald): Covid 19: Will NZ’s wave peak before summer holidays?
RNZ: Covid-19: End-of-year function season likely to be risky with cases on the rise

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Herald: Wellington council spending millions on half-empty office space (paywalled)
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): Auckland Council’s cost-saving committee cancels first meeting as it has nothing to discuss
Rachael Kelly (Stuff): Gore council to meet behind closed doors on Thursday to discuss mayor’s $300k governance structure
RNZ: Newly elected Kaipara mayor Craig Jepson shuts down councillor’s karakia request

CRIME, POLICE, JUSTICE
1News: Reinstating three strikes law won’t curb offending – law expert
Liz McDonald and Olivia Caldwell (Press): Gang fight at Christchurch Town Hall cited as businesses call for action on crime
RNZ: Canterbury businesses ‘menaced’ by smash and grabs and antisocial behaviour
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Tactical response model puts pressure on police staffing
Andrew Lensen and Marcin Betkier (The Conversation): We built an algorithm that predicts the length of court sentences – could AI play a role in the justice system?
Ashley Jones (Spinoff): My marriage is finally over. My fight against New Zealand’s archaic divorce law goes on

ENERGY
Craig Ashworth (Local Democracy Reporting): Hapū and Greenpeace back to court for stricter hydrogen rules
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Exporting hydrogen will force policy and economic decisions

TRANSPORT
Richard Harman (Politik): Brown backs heavy rail (paywalled)
Nikki Mandow (Newsroom): Auckland’s free EV chargers won’t be free much longer

EDUCATION
Kristie Boland (Stuff): Sex and relationships education in NZ schools not good enough, new research shows
Niva Chittock (RNZ): Little priority given to sex education in schools, teachers say

OTHER
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): Wasted
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): How a US President set NZ’s drug laws
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Does cronyism exist in our public service?
Dana Johannsen (Stuff): Public Services Commission opposes Sport NZ’s involvement with sport integrity agency
Nona Pelletier (RNZ): Significant migration to New Zealand expected in early 2023 – Kiwibank
Ankur Sabharwal (Stuff): The $57 million IT disaster at Immigration NZ
Morgan Godfery (Stuff): In Whakatāne, another Ihumātao is in the making
Melanie Carroll (Stuff): More migrants good for businesses but a headache for Reserve Bank: Kiwibank
Luke Kirkness (Rotorua Daily Post): Rainwater tanks should be mandatory on all new builds in New Zealand (paywalled)
RNZ: Treaty settlement agreement will address housing, energy issues on Chatham Islands, iwi says
Tom Kitchin (RNZ): Questions remain over mysterious Te Urewera hut fire
RNZ: Means-testing NZ Super payments one way to address scheme’s rising cost

PODCAST: In this episode of A View from Afar political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss how security threats present themselves in a multitude of forms. This week we look at a threat that mixes belief with nationalism. This threat is most obvious in its homeland where the movement was conceived.

But its devotees have migrated to countries all over the world. When confronted by others within their communities, they respond with threats that by degrees… become more sinister.

We are talking about Hindutva nationalism, a right wing movement which has its political epicentre in India.

In the United States of America, a network of universities had organised a virtual conference to discuss Hindutva’s rise. The Washington Post reported this month “the backlash was swift and staggering”.

It added: “Nearly a million emails were sent to universities in protest, the virtual event’s website was attacked and forced offline, organisers reached death and rape threats”, and pro-Modi government media in India said the event was “Hinduphobic and fostered hate against the community”. ref. Washington Post.

And in New Zealand – where this South Pacific nation suffered the tragedy known as the March 15 white supremacist attacks that killed 51 Muslim people while they met for Friday prayer – concerns are now emitting from within the vibrant Indian communities that Hindutva nationalism is growing.

As Stuff.co.nz reported this month, a professor at New Zealand’s Massey University, Mohan Dutta, has spoken out against Hindutva’s far right messages.

Professor Dutta has received hate messages relegating his concerns as promoting Hinduphobia.

Again as Stuff reported, Professor Dutta has received threats such as: “Bootlicker”, “brown servant”. “If you were in India you would be burnt… We should do anything in our power to stop him.” ref. Stuff.co.nz

So should we consider Hindutva as simply a right wing nationalistic political movement, with networks all over the world? Or does it pose a serious and growing threat to security?

—

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

LIVE PODCST: In this episode of A View from Afar political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss how security threats present themselves in a multitude of forms. This week we look at a threat that mixes belief with nationalism. This threat is most obvious in its homeland where the movement was conceived.

But its devotees have migrated to countries all over the world. When confronted by others within their communities, they respond with threats that by degrees… become more sinister.

We are talking about Hindutva nationalism, a right wing movement which has its political epicentre in India.

In the United States of America, a network of universities had organised a virtual conference to discuss Hindutva’s rise. The Washington Post reported this month “the backlash was swift and staggering”.

It added: “Nearly a million emails were sent to universities in protest, the virtual event’s website was attacked and forced offline, organisers reached death and rape threats”, and pro-Modi government media in India said the event was “Hinduphobic and fostered hate against the community”. ref. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/03/india-us-universities-hindutva/

And in New Zealand – where this South Pacific nation suffered the tragedy known as the March 15 white supremacist attacks that killed 51 Muslim people while they met for Friday prayer – concerns are now emitting from within the vibrant Indian communities that Hindutva nationalism is growing.

As Stuff.co.nz reported this month, a professor at New Zealand’s Massey University, Mohan Dutta, has spoken out against Hindutva’s far right messages.

Professor Dutta has received hate messages relegating his concerns as promoting Hinduphobia.

Again as Stuff reported, Professor Dutta has received threats such as: “Bootlicker”, “brown servant”. “If you were in India you would be burnt… We should do anything in our power to stop him.”

ref. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300420720/the-rise-of-hindutva-and-hate-in-aotearoas-indian-diaspora

So should we consider Hindutva as simply a right wing nationalistic political movement, with networks all over the world? Or does it pose a serious and growing threat to security?

And remember, if you are joining us live, we can include your comments in this programme.

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – In this week’s podcast, Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss: three areas that have been relied on to protect New Zealanders from terror-styled attacks; legal measures designed to protect communities from danger and even protect individuals from themselves and why they failed.

The background to this episode is the tragic, terrifying, attacks that were committed against unarmed innocent people at West Auckland’s LynnMall Countdown supermarket, by Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen.

The attacks occurred last Friday, September 3, 2021. It ended with the hospitalisation of seven people, and, the death of Mr Samsudeen who was fatally shot by special tactics Police officers during his attempt to kill and injure as many people as he could.

Immediately after, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the nation that the dead man was a terrorist and that she herself, the Police, and the courts were all aware of how dangerous he was and had been seeking to protect New Zealand from this man.

Within days of the attacks, we learned, that Mr Samsudeen was a troubled man with psychologists describing him as angry, capable of carrying out his threats, and displaying varying degrees of mental illness and disorder.

Mr Samsudeen was a refugee who sought asylum here in New Zealand after experiencing, through his formative years, civil war and ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka, who, at around 20 years of age, arrived in New Zealand on a student visa and then sought asylum.

He was eventually granted refugee status, and since then spent years in prison on various charges and convictions – largely involving the possession of terrorist propaganda seeded on the internet by ISIS, and, threats showing intent to commit terrorist acts against New Zealanders.

In this week’s episode, Paul Buchanan and Manning examine questions as to whether this tragedy could have been prevented and will consider New Zealand’s:

• Security and terror laws
• Deportation laws involving those with refugee status
• Mental Health Act and whether this was available to the authorities.

Buchanan and Manning also analyse whether it is necessary for the New Zealand Government to move to tighten New Zealand’s terrorism security laws. And, if it does, how the intended new laws compare to other Five Eyes member countries.

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – LIVE @ MIDDAY Thursday: In this week’s podcast, Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will discuss: three areas that have been relied on to protect New Zealanders from terror-styled attacks; legal measures designed to protect communities from danger and even protect individuals from themselves and why they failed.

The background to this episode is the tragic, terrifying, attacks that were committed against unarmed innocent people at West Auckland’s LynnMall Countdown supermarket, by Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen.

The attacks occurred last Friday, September 3, 2021. It ended with the hospitalisation of seven people, and, the death of Mr Samsudeen who was fatally shot by special tactics Police officers during his attempt to kill and injure as many people as he could.

Immediately after, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the nation that the dead man was a terrorist and that she herself, the Police, and the courts were all aware of how dangerous he was and had been seeking to protect New Zealand from this man.

Within days of the attacks, we learned, that Mr Samsudeen was a troubled man with psychologists describing him as angry, capable of carrying out his threats, and displaying varying degrees of mental illness and disorder.

Mr Samsudeen was a refugee who sought asylum here in New Zealand after experiencing, through his formative years, civil war and ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka, who, at around 20 years of age, arrived in New Zealand on a student visa and then sought asylum.

He was eventually granted refugee status, and since then spent years in prison on various charges and convictions – largely involving the possession of terrorist propaganda seeded on the internet by ISIS, and, threats showing intent to commit terrorist acts against New Zealanders.

In this week’s episode, Paul Buchanan and I will examine questions as to whether this tragedy could have been prevented and will consider New Zealand’s:

• Security and terror laws
• Deportation laws involving those with refugee status
• Mental Health Act and whether this was available to the authorities.

We will also analyse whether it is necessary for the New Zealand Government to move to tighten New Zealand’s terrorism security laws. And, if it does, how the intended new laws compare to other Five Eyes member countries.

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar: Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan present this week’s podcast, A View from Afar, where they analyse New Zealand’s national security strategy.

There has been no defence white paper since the John Key National-led governments and no comprehensive review of New Zealand’s strategic priorities, nor assessment of the region’s threat landscape both internal and external.

Now, with hybrid threats like cyberwarfare and terrorism adopting an “intermestic” (international and domestic) characteristic due to on-line recruitment and radicalisation, the perceived need is to develop a holistic national security strategy that addresses defence, security and intelligence needs of the 2020 decade.

But what does this all mean for New Zealand’s defence forces, intelligence community, and cyber-defence agencies?

ALSO: World Watch – The latest/recent round of elections in places like Peru, Mexico and Israel can be viewed as referendums on neoliberalism and national populism.

For example: You can see how Israel prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adopted Donald Trump-like rhetoric to describe his opponents.

A similar style has been used by the right wing in Peru as well as in Brazil.

The Peru election pits a socialist native Indian against Peru’s former dictator Fujimori’s daughter. She is a neoliberal conservative.

Both national populism and various socialist approaches have something in common: both ideologies reject neoliberal economic theory in principle and in fact.

With the left most likely to win the elections in Peru, and considering the challenges that Peru faces (including a pandemic where Covid-19 has raged through its communities positioning Peru as having suffered the highest recorded death rates in the world) the question begs, has neoliberalism run its course?

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar: Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan present this week’s podcast, A View from Afar, where they will analyse New Zealand’s national security strategy.

There has been no defence white paper since the John Key National-led governments and no comprehensive review of New Zealand’s strategic priorities, nor assessment of the region’s threat landscape both internal and external.

Now, with hybrid threats like cyberwarfare and terrorism adopting an “intermestic” (international and domestic) characteristic due to on-line recruitment and radicalisation, the perceived need is to develop a holistic national security strategy that addresses defence, security and intelligence needs of the 2020 decade.

But what does this all mean for New Zealand’s defence forces, intelligence community, and cyber-defence agencies?

ALSO: World Watch – The latest/recent round of elections in places like Peru, Mexico and Israel can be viewed as referendums on neoliberalism and national populism.

For example: You can see how Israel prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adopted Donald Trump-like rhetoric to describe his opponents.

A similar style has been used by the right wing in Peru as well as in Brazil.

The Peru election pits a socialist native Indian against Peru’s former dictator Fujimori’s daughter. She is a neoliberal conservative.

Both national populism and various socialist approaches have something in common: both ideologies reject neoliberal economic theory in principle and in fact.

With the left most likely to win the elections in Peru, and considering the challenges that Peru faces (including a pandemic where Covid-19 has raged through its communities positioning Peru as having suffered the highest recorded death rates in the world) the question begs, has neoliberalism run its course?

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar: Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning debate:

Whether the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has accepted its failure to identify and detect terrorist planning activity in the lead up to the tragedy that occurred in Christchurch against Muslim people on March 15, 2019.

ALSO, since the Christchurch terror attacks, after the Commission of Inquiry, after all the external and internal assessments and reports, should New Zealanders be satisfied that the NZSIS is match-fit, ready and resourced, equipped to identify extremist hate ideologies and prevent them from posing threats against this country’s peoples?

If not, what needs to change?

COMMENT ON THIS DISCUSSION:

You can interact with the programme by clicking on one of these social media channels. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

A View from Afar: Join Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning debate:

Whether the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has accepted its failure to identify and detect terrorist planning activity in the lead up to the tragedy that occurred in Christchurch against Muslim people on March 15, 2019.

ALSO, since the Christchurch terror attacks, after the Commission of Inquiry, after all the external and internal assessments and reports, should New Zealanders be satisfied that the NZSIS is match-fit, ready and resourced, equipped to identify extremist hate ideologies and prevent them from posing threats against this country’s peoples?

If not, what needs to change?

COMMENT ON THIS DISCUSSION:

You can interact with the programme by clicking on one of these social media channels. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

A View from Afar – Paul G. Buchanan and host Selwyn Manning discuss whether the Five Eyes spy agencies are adequately monitoring white supremacist activity, and discuss, what can be done. Plus Ollie Neas joins the panel to discuss whether the New Zealand Government is aware of what Rocket Lab is sending into space?

This episode’s topics:

* Terrorism and the Dark Web: White supremacists are back online and making threats. Who is keeping track of these practitioners of hate? Has the US-led Five Eyes spy network let us down?

* Rocket Lab follow-up: What did the New Zealand Government know, and not know, at the point it gave RocketLab’s March mission (with a payload of US military tracking systems) a green-light?

Follow Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning’s podcast and keep ahead of security intelligence and foreign policy trends and issues.

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

A View from Afar – Join Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning LIVE and keep ahead of security intelligence and foreign policy trends and issues.

This week’s episode will go LIVE Thursday, midday, NZDST (Wednesday evening 6pm USEST).

This episode’s topics:

* Terrorism and the Dark Web: White supremacists are back online and making threats. Who is keeping track of these practitioners of hate? Has the US-led Five Eyes spy network let us down?

* Rocket Lab follow-up: What did the New Zealand Government know, and not know, at the point it gave RocketLab’s March mission (with a payload of US military tracking systems) a green-light?

* Host Selwyn Manning will be joined by Paul Buchanan and Ollie Neas to discuss these issues.

COMMENT ON THIS DISCUSSION:

You can interact with the programme by clicking on one of these social media channels. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

VIDEO: In what will be a precursor episode to a planned Evening Report panel-series through 2021, Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan discuss and respond to elements of the Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terrorist attacks of March 15, 2019.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In correspondence after this live episode, government sector law specialist, Graeme Edgeler, wrote:

• Once again you fail to distinguish between general precepts under the Inquiries Act and the specific terms of reference for this RCI. It specifies that all testimony, statements and documentary provision is voluntary on the part of those who agree to appear before the Commission. The blanket name suppression of all such people below the Director level was in part designed to encourage whistle blowers to come forward when they otherwise would not under the voluntary regime. All classified material was supplied at the various agency’s discretion–the RCI could not compel production of anything that the agencies refused to supply. This is known as a self-limiting or self-binding approach, something that limits the legal exposure of people who otherwise could be held liable for actions that (however indirectly) contributed to mass murder.

• The Royal Commission’s terms of reference are publicly available (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0072/latest/whole.html#LMS183988) They do no [sic] specify that all testimony, statements, and documentary provision is voluntary. In fact, the word voluntary does not appear at all. Nor do the words testimony, statement(s), document(s) or documentary. There are requirements in the terms of reference around secrecy, and confidentiality, around holding parts of the inquiry in private, etc, but there is nothing in them covering what you say is in there (feel free to suggest a clause you think has this effect). I do not rule out that as a matter of fact, the inquiry avoided using its power of summons in respect of material held by state agencies, but if it did, it was not because its terms of reference prevented it.

THE EPISODE:

• EveningReport.nz Programme: A View from Afar
• Live Discussion: Paul G. Buchanan (36th-Parallel.com) and Selwyn Manning (EveningReport.nz)
• Interaction: Comments welcomed during the LIVE programme via Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter (via Periscope)
• Time: Midday, NZDST (6pm, US EST), Thursday December 10, 2020.
• The Report: Officially titled – Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques on March 15 2019.

The Inquiry’s terms of reference contained three areas:

• The terrorist’s actions
• Actions of public sector agencies
• Recommended changes that could prevent future terrorist attacks of this kind.

LIVE DISCUSSION POINTS:

This A View from Afar discussion will explore takeouts from the Inquiry’s report and will include (Ref. https://chchroyalinquiry.cwp.govt.nz/the-report/):

‘The idea that intelligence and security agencies engage in mass surveillance of New Zealanders is a myth.’

In 2014, the intelligence and security agencies were in a fragile state. A rebuilding exercise did not get underway until mid-2016 and was still unfinished when the terrorist attack took place in 2019.

Between 2016 and 15 March 2019, the primary, but not exclusive, focus of the counter-terrorism resources was on what was seen as the presenting threat of Islamist extremist terrorism.

There was an inappropriate concentration of counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism.

In May 2018, there was one project focused on developing an understanding of right-wing extremism in New Zealand. At that time, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service had only a limited understanding of right-wing extremism in New Zealand and work on this was not complete when the terrorist attack occurred.

The intelligence function of New Zealand Police had degraded and from 2015 was not carrying out strategic terrorism threat assessments.

The SIS had a lack of capacity until mid-2018 both to deal with (its perceived Islamic extremist) threat and, at the same time, to baseline other threats.

Other agencies did not engage in informed discussion about the SIS approach nor consider the implications of this.

COULD THE TERRORIST HAVE BEEN DETECTED AND IDENTIFIED?:

Given the operational security that the individual maintained, the legislative authorising environment in which the counter-terrorism effort operates and the limited capability and capacity of the counter-terrorism agencies, there was no plausible way he could have been detected except by chance.

The fact the individual was not detected was not in itself an intelligence failure.

RECOMMENDATIONS (SECURITY/INTEL REFORM):

The creation of a national intelligence and security agency (NISA). This will deliver a more systematic approach to counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism efforts.

The CEO of a proposed NISA would be the national adviser on intelligence and security.

Full implementation of our recommendations will result in a better organised counter‑terrorism effort with enhanced capacity and capability and a less restrictive legislative framework.

NISA would provide:

• Strategic policy advice.
• Develop a counter-terrorism strategy.
• Administer relevant national security legislation.

POLITICAL, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND STRONGER OVERSIGHT:

The Inquiry expects to see far more political and public engagement and discussion and stronger oversight.

This will result in greater public trust and thus social licence.  We wish to see discussion about counter-terrorism normalised. Our recommendations provide mechanisms for this to occur.

PUBLIC DISCOURSE:

The Inquiry stated that should a public facing two-way discourse have been encouraged by governments through: a “see something, say something” policy, it is possible that aspects of the individual’s planning and preparation may have been reported to counter-terrorism agencies.

Such reporting, the Inquiry stated, would have provided the best chance of disrupting the terrorist attack.

RETROSPECTIVE CRITICISM:

If the known risk that a terrorist could take advantage of New Zealand’s lax regulation of semi-automatic firearms had been addressed earlier, it is likely that there would have been no terrorist attack on 15 March 2019.

INQUIRY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

It will take time to enhance public trust and confidence in New Zealand’s counter-terrorism effort, so work to do so should begin urgently.

The agencies within the scope of the Inquiry include: National Security Group of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Government Communications Security Bureau, Immigration New Zealand, New Zealand Customs Service, New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.

Be informed: Link to Inquiry Report.

COMMENT DURING THE LIVE DISCUSSION:

You can interact with the LIVE programme by clicking on one of these social media channels. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

You can also see video-on-demand of this show, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

AT WHAT POINT in time does an atrocity have a beginning? Is it when the first gunshot is fired? When the first victim is killed? When a killer first submits to thoughts of hatred, alienation, blame and decides to apply those emotions into physical action? Or, is it when racism is justified, when killing is considered defensible by those in whom one chooses to associate with, to support, to impress? Is it when one subscribes to another’s ideology of hate? Or when silence is a protector – chosen by reasonable people – when those around us speak of inhuman things?

*******

‘Ok lads, enough talking, it’s time for action.’ With those words, early on March 15, 2019, and expressed to his dark-net acquaintances, Brenton Harrison Tarrant initiated his plan to murder as many people of the Muslim faith as was possible.

Tarrant then packed six firearms into his vehicle, including: two military-styled assault rifles (AR-15 .223 calibre) and semi-automatic shotguns. He added 7000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet-styled knife, and four IEDs (improvised explosive devices).

Wrapped within a bulletproof-vest he reversed from the driveway of his rented Dunedin home and self-drove 361 kilometres northward to New Zealand’s largest South Island city, Christchurch.

Reconnaissance:

Christchurch is known for its gardens, parks, sport, English-Victorian-styled architecture, earthquakes, parochialism, a modest inter-faith Muslim community; and, paradoxically, its white extremist gangs.

Two months earlier, in January 2019, Tarrant visited Christchurch. The purpose: reconnaissance of Al Noor Mosque – a place of prayer and worship for hundreds of the city’s Muslim people.

In January, Tarrant parked his vehicle adjacent to Al Noor Mosque, unpacked a drone and flew it above and over the facility. He recorded an aerial view video of the grounds, noting points of entry, exits, corridors where people could escape, where they could hide.

Tarrant observed how hundreds of people would attend Friday prayers. He decided Al Noor was the location, and, Friday was to be the day of the week which provided him an opportunity to kill as many people as possible on one single afternoon.

Christchurch is also a city built on a plane. Geographically it rests on a flat ancient seabed – framed only by the Port Hills to the south and the towering Southern Alps to the west. The city’s traffic is characteristically light (compared to other cities) and the route from Al Noor Mosque to nearby Linwood Islamic Centre is a short drive. Tarrant fathomed that even with news of a mass killer in the area, traffic would most likely be light.

Tarrant quietly, and unobserved, took notes. Once satisfied, he returned to Dunedin where he determinedly, and with precision, planned mass murder.

At no time during the reconnaissance, nor the planning phase, did New Zealand Police nor Australia’s Police, the Security Intelligence Services, the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau notice what was being planned and expressed online. Brenton Tarrant’s intensifying hatred grew, undeterred, against those who were not white. As is the case of many western nations, New Zealand, along with its Five Eyes intelligence partners, Australia, Canada, Britain and the United States of America, had appeared more preoccupied with surveillance of those of Muslim and Islamic origins than they were of disarming an intensifying white extremist threat. 

NOTE: For a video discussion on this security intelligence element, see: A View from Afar with Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning, March 27, 2020.

Alpha and Omega:

In the early afternoon of March 15, 2019, Tarrant arrived at his first waypoint. He parked his vehicle in a neighbouring driveway. Around 190 worshipers (children, women, men) had already arrived at Al Noor Mosque and others were still making their way there for Friday Prayer.

It was a warm late Summers day. In a nearby park, people were playing. School children were enjoying the peace and fun that the garden city offered.

Inside his vehicle, Tarrant strapped his bulletproof vest tightly to his body. He put on a helmet. Earlier, he had fixed a video camera and a strobe light to the helmet – the latter was designed to confuse his intended victims; the camera was connected to the internet via a cellphone device so as to provide Tarrant the opportunity to livestream his intended atrocity to a Facebook audience.

Tarrant then sent a ‘Manifesto’ to a white extremist website. He also emailed his intentions (with ‘Manifesto’ attached) to the New Zealand Government, to the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and to national and international media.

Minutes later, Tarrant weaponed up, stepping from his vehicle he carried two semi-automatic firearms (including a shotgun) with multiple magazines, and approached the entrance to Al Noor Mosque.

“At that time four worshippers, Mounir Soliman, Syed Ali, Amjad Hamid and Hussein Moustafa, were at the Mosque’s front entrance. Without warning you discharged the shotgun multiple times in quick succession, killing each of them. A wounded Mr Moustafa was despatched by you at point-blank range with shots to his back and head.” (ref. New Zealand High Court ruling, Justice Mander, August 27, 2020; URL: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/R-v-Tarrant-sentencing-remarks-20200827.pdf)

That was just the beginning, the moment Brenton Tarrant decided to open fire, ultimately putting his plan into action. His hateful journey, once conceived in his past, had been nurtured by those with whom he chose to associate with. His racist views had become darker by the month. His decision to become a mass murderer, a terrorist by his own definition and admission, was now a reality.

*******

Catharsis From Horror

Throughout the week of August 24-27, New Zealanders discovered how detailed Tarrant’s plan was. There was a risk, due to Tarrant’s guilty plea (lodged some months earlier) and his decision to refuse legal assistance, that details of his crimes – forensically applied to a timeline by detectives, scientists and prosecutors – would be sealed beyond the reach and rightful consideration of survivors. New Zealanders of all ethnicities, colour and religions too, needed to hear detail of how this monstrous act of terrorism could have occurred in this relatively peaceful land.

Officially, the High Court summarised the charges:

“The Offender pleaded guilty to 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of committing a terrorist act after shooting worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch. Court held that no minimum period of imprisonment would be sufficient to satisfy the purpose of sentencing. Offender sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under s 103 (2A) Sentencing Act 2002.”

There was also a concern, that Tarrant, who had the legal right to address the High Court, would use that opportunity to express his white extremist ideology. As a preventive measure, the High Court’s Justice Mander applied tight controls on media, and insisted Tarrant would be withdrawn from the Court should he begin such a tirade.

Victims and survivors were offered the right to speak their impact statements to the Court and, significantly to tell Tarrant what they thought of him, and of the true consequences his actions had had on their lives.

Initially, 60 people wished to read their statements to the Court and to the killer. Others, after observing how their fellow Muslims accounts somehow were beneficial, also wished to have their experiences told.

Some spoke of how Tarrant had failed in his purpose, as their faith had strengthened since the murders, that they as a community had become stronger, and how loved they had felt when New Zealanders of all colours embraced them as valued members of the nation’s family. A common account reiterated how ‘you sought to divide us, to alienate us. You failed’.

While in Court, Tarrant’s deportment was passive, absolutely. Whenever he was ushered into the Court, his hands and legs bound in shackles, he was assisted by officers to sit before the packed public gallery. When the Judge addressed him, he was respectfully at full attention. When addressed by his victims loved ones and survivors, he was attentive, although without emotion.

At one point, a murdered victims’ mother addressed Tarrant. She stated she had “no hate for him” as a person, that she forgave him. Tarrant acknowledged her with a nod. Began to blink rapidly and appeared to wipe a tear from his eye. Shortly after, New Zealanders learned that the killer had withdrawn his intention to address the court.

A total of 98 victims and loved ones read their impact statements to the Court and to Tarrant. Some expressing distress and some anger. The killer was referred to as a ‘coward’ by a school teacher, whose brother was murdered in cold blood. Another man, the son of a middle aged worshiper addressed Tarrant as a ‘maggot’. Another, that Tarrant was nothing but “rotten meat” to him. Three men concluded their account with a Muslim prayer and chanted Allahu Akbar while pointing defiantly at Tarrant.

The Court observed in silence, noting the tragic recount of events told by those who suffer injuries from the bullet, the experience leaving physical, mental, emotional, social wounds as a consequence of Tarrant’s crimes – but none expressed a loss of faith in Islam nor of New Zealand as a community.

As Radio New Zealand reports: ‘One survivor, 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 Radio New Zealand’s 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 said on live radio.

Dr Hamimah Tuyan said she 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.” Ref. Radio New Zealand, ( https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/424653/mosque-attack-hero-we-achieved-what-we-wanted )

She, and many others, spoke of Catharsis in having had the courage to speak of their experience and their strength, and of the bravery of their loved ones who died on March 15, 2019.

Cold Blooded Reality:

Then came the Judge’s ruling. For four hours Justice Mander read a precise account of what happened that day. In a move that was welcomed by the victims and New Zealanders, Justice Mander spoke of each victim and of their character, of the circumstances of how each person died.

For the first time, New Zealanders learned of the cold blooded reality of the consequences of hate that tore at the heart of the Muslim community that day.

Accounts like:

‘As you made your way down the hallway of the Mosque to the main prayer area you shot Ata Mohammad Ata Elayyan and Ali Elmadani, murdering both men. You then entered the main prayer room at the rear of the building. There were over 120 worshippers present. They had heard the gunfire. Appreciating that something was very wrong, they moved to each side of the large open prayer area to where there were single exits in each corner.

‘When you entered the main prayer room you initially fired at worshippers who were lying on the ground. You shot Ziyaad Shah. You then turned to the two large groups gathered on each side of the prayer area. There was little chance of escape. You fired your semi-automatic firearm into the mass of people on one side of the room. The rate of fire was extremely rapid. You repeatedly moved your weapon across that side of the room before turning to the other group of trapped people on the opposite side.

‘As you turned your semi-automatic weapon on these worshippers, Naeem Rashid ran at you. Despite being shot, he crashed into you, forcing you down on one knee and dislodging a magazine from your vest. Mr Rashid had been hit in the shoulder and, as he lay on his back, you fired further shots at him. Mr Rashid died but his bravery allowed a number of his fellow worshippers to escape.’

‘By this stage you had emptied a 60-round magazine. You replaced that with another. Standing in the middle of the room, you fired rapid bursts towards each side of the prayer room where people were trying to hide or were attempting to escape. After reloading yet again, you continued to shoot at persons lying prone or trying to escape. You discharged rapid bursts across both sides of the room before approaching individual victims and shooting them. As Ashraf Ragheb sought to escape from a side room down the hallway to the main entrance, you shot and killed him. Already there were many dead.

‘You moved closer to each now piled group of people lying deceased, wounded or feigning death on each side of the main prayer room. Worshippers, who were either crying out for help or who appeared to be alive, were systematically shot in the head. One of those was a three-year-old child, Mucaad Ibrahim. He was clinging to his father’s leg and you murdered him with two aimed shots.’

The judge continued, detailing how Brenton Tarrant then made his way outside Al Noor Mosque.

‘Outside you shot at people attempting to flee. You shot Mohammad Faruk in the back, killing him. Wasseim Daragmih and his fouryear-old daughter received life-threatening wounds. You fired in the opposite direction, hitting Sazada Akhter in the spine. She will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life.’

Tarrant then returned to his vehicle. Quickly he rearmed himself with an assault rifle fitted with two 40 round magazines.

‘You fired this weapon down a side driveway towards the back of the Mosque, murdering Muse Awale and Hamza Alhaj Mustafa, a 16-year-old boy who had escaped from the main prayer room and was sheltering behind vehicles. Another man, Mohammad Shamim Siddiqui, was critically wounded.

‘You then returned to the main prayer room. As you entered you saw Md Hoq, who was wounded,sitting up against a window. You aimed one shot at Mr Hoq, killing him instantly, before firing further shots at a group of people lying in one corner. There were some 30 deceased or critically wounded worshippers in this mass of people. You delivered fatal shots to those who were still alive.

‘You then reloaded your weapon and walked over to the group of people lying in the opposite corner and fired into them. You noticed Haji Nabi attempting to shelter behind a small wall. With two carefully aimed shots you murdered Mr Nabi before walking to within a metre of the piled group and firing further shots into those who were either deceased or mortally wounded. Any persons who showed signs of life were shot.’

The Judge’s ruling continued on, every precise detail that the Police, scientists, and prosecutors had discovered was read to Tarrant. The killer’s gaze remained attentive. Silently, he sat, emotionless, listening to every word.

Observers reflected on how Brenton Tarrant appeared a hollow shell of a human being. Immediately after his arrest, Tarrant presented as arrogant, remorseless, complaining to Police that he was disappointed that he didn’t kill more people. He was then in peak physical condition, clearly having been working out regularly. But this week, he appeared without emotion, without purpose, passively listening to the accounts of victims and that of the Judge detailing the facts of what he had done. He did not challenge the facts, rather he had accepted them as accurate a true account of his crimes.

Justice Mander continued on:

‘After exiting the Mosque for the second time you saw two women attempting to escape. You shot Ansi Karippakulam Alibava and Husna Ahmed. Ms Ahmed was killed. Ms Karippakulam Alibava was wounded. While she lay on the street, pleading for help, you murdered this defenceless young woman, firing two shots at her from point-blank range. You then returned to your vehicle and inflicted the indignity of driving over her body as she lay in front of the driveway from which you exited.’

Still, Tarrant remained emotionless, leaving some to ponder whether he was intent of creating an enigma of himself, a mysterious figure who refused to offer any words or emotion upon which others may define him. Rather, he had earlier defined himself to appointed psychiatrists and psychologists as a “Terrorist” and a “Fascist”. He had stated to the clinicians, appointed to assess his personality and condition, that in the months leading up to the killings, he had sunken into despair, into a depression. That he was angry at the world and wanted to hurt it, damage it.

The Child The Man:

Radio New Zealand investigated Brenton Tarrant’s background. The following segment is a paraphrase of that investigation.

Brenton Tarrant’s life experience was unremarkable, at least in the beginning. He was born on October 27, 1990 and raised in rural Australia, in a town called Grafton some 500 kilometres north of Sydney. He was the youngest of three siblings. His parents separated while he was still at school. He played sport (Rugby League) but was overweight and was bullied, to a degree, by others of his age. His father worked as a rubbish collector, and his family was respected in the general Clarence Valley area.

One of Tarrant’s cousins told Australia’s 7News, there was little in his background that would have indicated problems ahead. But, when his father died of cancer when Tarrant was 20 years of age, he was crushed by the loss. He inherited AU$500,000.00 from his fathers estate. Dabbled in investments. Then travelled extensively. It was during his overseas experience abroad, particularly in Europe, that he was radicalised.

Details are vague, but court accounts place him in France where he was attracted to white extremist groups with which he increasingly shared commonly held racist views. He continued to travel around Europe, and developed an interest in the countries that were once ruled by the Ottoman Empire, visiting historic battle sites. He travelled through greater Asia, visiting Pakistan and the border areas of Afghanistan.

Then, in August, 2017, he emigrated to Dunedin, New Zealand. He joined a rifle club, acquired a firearms license from the New Zealand Police, and joined a South Dunedin gym.

He kept largely to himself, isolating his ideas, his anger, his purpose from those around him.

Brenton Tarrant never sought to work in New Zealand and showed no intention to get a job.

Wider family members visited Tarrant while he lived in Dunedin. They returned to Australia, noting concerns to his immediate family that he was not in a good state of mind, and had shown them that he had many guns.

Then, as Radio New Zealand reported Tarrant’s last message to the white extremist group on 8Chan came in March 15, 2019:

“It’s been a long ride and … you are all top blokes and the best bunch of cobbers a man could ask for,” Tarrant posted.’

Radio New Zealand noted: ‘His friends were faceless, his interactions existent only in cyberspace.’ (Ref. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/424269/a-loner-with-a-lot-of-money-a-look-into-the-christchurch-mosque-gunman-s-past )

The Courtroom Account Continued:

Justice Mander:

‘As you drove away from the Al Noor Mosque you continued to shoot at anyone who you considered should be the target of your hate. You discharged a shotgun at two men who appeared to be of African descent. A short distance on you saw Muhammad Nasir and his son walking towards the Mosque dressed in traditional clothing. You again discharged the shotgun, seriously wounding Mr Nasir, before actioning the weapon again and pointing it directly at the boy who was trying to hide behind a wall. You pulled the trigger but it failed to fire.

‘You then sped away, driving directly to the Linwood Islamic Centre. On the way you came abreast of another vehicle being driven by a Fijian man. You pointed your shotgun at him. Despite repeated attempts to discharge the shotgun it failed to fire.

‘When you got to Linwood you approached the Mosque on foot down a long driveway, armed with yet another firearm. You saw three people in and around a car. You shot Ghulam Hussain in the head, killing him, before firing at and wounding Muhammad Raza who had got out of the other side of the vehicle. You shot another occupant of the car, Karam Bibi, before advancing up the driveway, where you saw Mr Raza attempting to find cover behind a fence. He attempted to retreat from you. Despite his pleas to spare him, you murdered him. A wounded Ms Bibi sought to hide in front of the vehicle. You walked to within metres of her as she lay prone with her head buried in her hands, stood over her, and killed her.’

Tarrant approached the Mosque, passing a window. He saw a silhouette of a man. He shot him with a single shot to the head. The man’s name was Mohammed Khan.

With your weapon now empty, you ran down the driveway back to your vehicle. As you reached the car, Abdul Aziz Wahabazadah, who had courageously followed you down the driveway, challenged you. You retrieved another semi-automatic rifle from your vehicle and fired at him. He dived between some parked cars, before you walked back up the driveway to the main entrance to the Mosque.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I wrote about this moment, in the German magazine Cicero.de in March 2019, shortly after the murders:

Inside Linwood Mosque was Abdul Aziz, a man who had gathered with his Muslim brothers. He had just begun his second pray when he heard gunshots outside. At first he thought it was someone playing with firecrackers (fireworks). But then, within seconds, he heard people screaming.

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… Written on the rifle were the words, ‘Welcome to hell’. (ref. Attentat in Christchurch – Willkommen in der Hölle) 

In the High Court this week, Justice Mander continued:

‘There were several people standing inside the entranceway and further into the building at whom you repeatedly fired. You killed Musa Patel. Walking further into the Mosque, you shot and killed Linda Armstrong. People were huddled in corners of the room or trying to escape as you fired your weapon, killing Mohamad Mohamedhosen. You continued to fire the semi-automatic rifle until it ran out of ammunition, at which point you dropped it and ran back to your vehicle.

‘Mr Wahabazadah chased you down the driveway, yelling at you. You removed the bayonet from your vest but retreated in the face of his advance. As you began driving away, Mr Wahabazadah got close enough to throw one of your discarded weapons at your vehicle.

‘After leaving the Linwood Mosque, your intention was to drive to Ashburton to attack another mosque, but your vehicle was rammed off the road by a police car and you were apprehended by two armed police officers. You were anxious not to be shot and offered no resistance,’ Justice Mander read.

The Judge then spoke about the character of each of those who were murdered, about people like:

‘Haji Mohemmed Daoud Nabi was a 71-year-old who had been married to his wife for 46 years. He was a role model and leader to his family; a best friend to his children and to his wife. For them the pain and anguish never goes away. Mrs Nabi describes herself as “alive, but not living”.’

And…

‘Ansi Karippakulam Alibava’s husband found her lying on the road. He sat down beside her until police told him it was not safe. He knew when ambulance staff were not treating her that she had died. He is devastated. He finds himself constantly reminded of the events of that day and the loss of his dear wife. He can find no solace.’

And…

‘Ozair Kadir was training to be an airline pilot like his big brother. His death has left a scar on the hearts of his proud parents. His murder haunts his father.‘

And…

‘Sayyad Ahmad Milne was a precious 14-year-old boy with his whole life before him. His murder has left a huge hole in his parents’ hearts. Despite his father’s resilience and forgiveness, they grieve for him deeply.’

And… …

‘Mucaad Aden Ibrahim was younger still — a three-year-old infant. His father described him as “the happiness of the household” — a vibrant young boy who made friends with everyone he met. No family can recover from the murder of such a small child.’

In the end, Justice Mander considered what sentence is permitted under New Zealand law. As a liberal social democratic country, New Zealand repealed the Death Penalty for murder at the end of the 1950s. After consideration, the Judge sentenced Brenton Harrison Tarrant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole – which means, he will die in prison. This is the first time any accused has received this sentence in New Zealand.

Officially, the Judge delivered his order:

‘On each of the 51 charges of murder (charges 1-51) you are sentenced to life imprisonment. I order that you serve the sentences without parole.

‘On each of the 40 charges of attempted murder (charges 52-91) you are sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 years’ imprisonment.

‘On the charge of committing a terrorist act (charge 92) you are sentenced to life imprisonment.

‘I also direct that the four psychiatric and psychological reports prepared for this proceeding be made available to the Department of Corrections.’

And then came the Judge’s final order:

‘Stand down.’

On writing this account, I am mindful that we cannot republish a summary of each of the victims when 91 people have been either killed or maimed by one man’s actions. It feels terribly selective when choosing who to include, and who to exclude from this report. How can one apply news values to people who have had their present and future stolen from them? One cannot. Therefore, I encourage you, readers, to read the unabridged ruling from the New Zealand High Court. While upsetting, it will offer a sober account of what occurs when hatred is left to grow inside us, when others do not know how to react or challenge when hatred is expressed . ( https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/R-v-Tarrant-sentencing-remarks-20200827.pdf )

Also, there is this awful thing, this contemplation, this series of unanswered questions which remain after the killing ceases, well after the victims’ faces become one. Answers remain elusive even after the verdict is read, the sentence is delivered, and the survivors have been ushered home to pick up the pieces of their lives. We are left to wonder, why. That question, that one word, will haunt us for the rest of our days.

Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern’s reaction to the sentence:

“I want to acknowledge the strength of our Muslim community who shared their words in court over the past few days,” Jacinda Ardern said.

“You relived the horrific events of March 15 to chronicle what happened that day and the pain it has left behind.

“Nothing will take the pain away but I hope you felt the arms of New Zealand around you through this whole process, and I hope you continue to feel that through all the days that follow.

“The trauma of March 15 is not easily healed but today I hope is the last where we have any cause to hear or utter the name of the terrorist behind it. His deserves to be a lifetime of complete and utter silence.”

Alpha and Omega, as we began, so we close:

At what point in time does an atrocity have a beginning? Is it when the first gunshot is fired? When the first victim is killed? When a killer first submits to thoughts of hatred, alienation, blame and decides to apply those emotions into physical action? Or, is it when racism is justified, when killing is considered defensible by those in whom one chooses to associate with, to support, to impress? Is it when one subscribes to another’s ideology of hate? Or when silence is a protector – chosen by reasonable people – when those around us speak of inhuman things?

*******

PS: We also invite you to view this week’s episode of A View fro Afar with Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning where they discuss, in depth, the causes, impact and possible solutions when dealing with white extremism.

See Also by this author: Willkommen in der Hölle, Cicero.de, March 2019. And, Christchurch Terror Attacks – New Zealand’s Darkest Hour