An attempt to excuse and defend the Christchurch terrorist

Tipene commented on “Attempts so far to mitigate the possibility of retaliation that are doomed to fail:”

* A feminist PM adopting a headscarf within the context of a religion that holds women to be second-class citizens, closely followed by an invitation this Friday for NZ women, descendants of the suffragettes no less, to do the same.

Petty outrage at the scarf wearing. It is common to dress as per what people think is appropriate for occasions. Ardern didn’t cover herself anywhere near completely.

Her gesture has been widely praised, and I know women who wouldn’t have done the same thing and won’t do it on Friday, which is their choice.

I think trying to shame Ardern for what she wore is as bad as trying to force someone to wear something they don’t want to wear, if that is what actually happens (from what I’ve seen Muslim women in New Zealand choose what they wear).

* The Speaker of the House inviting a prayer in Arabic in Parliament to Allah, which is the same speaker who eliminated a Christian prayer from Parliament.

Petty again. It was a one off, followed by the parliamentary prayer in Te Reo, and then repeated in English. The new standard prayer still mentions ‘Almighty God’ and INCLUDES ‘we pray for guidance’. I think it is appropriate not to be religion specific, given that many religions are followed freely in New Zealand, and many people (close to most) are not religious.

* Police arresting people for exercising their sovereign right to watch an online video.

There is no ‘sovereign right’ to watch whatever you like – and they didn’t just watch the video, they shared an offensive video illegally (allegedly). I think it’s fair to question the degree of the police response. See Philip Arps charged with sharing live stream of Christchurch mosque massacre – “two charges of distributing a livestream on March 16 of the murder of multiple victims at the Deans Ave mosque, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the publication is objectionable”.

“Police would like to remind people that it may be an offence to distribute or possess an objectionable publication under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993.”

I note you don’t condemn a horrible video, but claim some right to watch it. I think that is reprehensible given the content and the intent of the video.

* People being fired from their jobs for watching an online video, when there is no legal precedent in employment law for companies to do so.

I call bullshit on that. I’m sure people have been in trouble for watching illegal or inappropriate material at work, like porn.

If I did anything illegal at work, like watch an illegal video (and aa video that most people find highly objectionable), I would breach my terms of employment.

* NZ media organisations scrubbing their online content of any article deemed offensive to Islam.

I call bullshit on that.

Some content deemed inappropriate has been removed, which is not surprising given the circumstances, and should be generally applauded.

* Radio commentators apologizing and tugging their forelocks for writing a critique on Islamic practices in NZ as they apply to the use of ratepayer funded facilities.

A hundred people being shot and fifty people being murdered has prompted many people to reconsider past actions and attitudes. As they should have.

A small number of people instead choose to, in effect, support the killer and the killings, at least tacitly. As Tipene appears to me to be doing.

* Passing laws designed to significantly disarm a law abiding, gun owning population.

Bullshit again. It has long been widely agreed that our firearms are not fit for purpose. There has been no indication that laws will ‘significantly disarm’  anyone.

From what I have seen the Christchurch killer used illegal weapons. Most people will support making more difficult to posses illegal weapons (not Tipene apparently).

Banning military style semi automatic weapons will harm no one, and will reduce the chances that such weapons of cause major harm.

* Shutting down and suppressing free speech and open discourse on the events that have unfolded, and censoring discussion (including a variety of viewpoints) on same.

There are always limitations to ‘free speech’. Any publisher has the right to limit what there platform is used for.

Leading up to 2017, Canada adopted a number of the above measures, eventually adopting M103 in the Canadian House of Commons (look it up if interested).

I suspect that is where we are heading as well.

Not that it will make one blind bit of difference to the outcome, in my opinion.

You have made no attempt to condemn the killing of fifty people.

Instead, you have supported (with false and outlandish claims) what the killer did. You are in effect defending this act of terrorism, or at least defending things that made it possible.

I think this was a disgraceful defence of a horrible act from you Tipene. You appear to be supporting one of the most terrible things to happen in New Zealand, and appear to me to be willing more if not worse to happen as a result.

I have chosen to publish your comment in full to show how misguided, irresponsible and reprehensible it is.

68 Comments

  1. David

     /  March 21, 2019

    Please please let us not follow the absurdity of Canada and the UK where the coppers arrest you for mis gendering and the Canadian human rights folk are prosecuting a stand up comic for an inappropriate joke.
    Its already gone to far with arrests and sackings for watching a video on a selective basis, its a slippery slope when you chip away at peoples rights even the folk that are totally reprehensible, in fact those are the ones that need to be defended.
    We have since the birth of foreign correspondents seen hideous things on the news, journalists have won awards, governments embed reporters with troops, replays of murders are available all over the place. Surely the standard should be if you share the video in order to encourage others to do the same then off to jail, if you share it because it is hideous and appalling and you are horrified by it then surely that is not a crime.

    • It is a crime.

      I don’t understand why any decent person would want to share something that is hideous and appalling. We all know what was done, there is no need to see the video to know how bad it was.

      • MaureenW

         /  March 21, 2019

        I’m not aware there was any law against watching the video on Friday afternoon. There was mention that people shouldn’t watch it, (upsetting) not that watching it broke any law.

  2. MaureenW

     /  March 21, 2019

    I didn’t read Tipene’s comment as excusing or defending the terrorist. Rather identifying the knee-jerk reactions that have happened as a result, and that can easily lead to behaviour and activities we don’t want in NZ.

    The Prayer opening in Parliament was particularly cringe-worthy.

    I think there are ways to show empathy and solidarity (which most have done) without fake displays of adopting another’s cultural practices.
    As an aside I wonder if we should practice Sharia Law for a day when Tarrant is sentenced? That would take some guts but we don’t appear to have guts.

    • “Rather identifying the knee-jerk reactions that have happened as a result, and that can easily lead to behaviour and activities we don’t want in NZ. ”

      Most people are trying to prevent behaviour and activities we don’t want in NZ, like mass murdering defenceless innocent people.

      Yes there’s a chance of knee jerk over reactions, but doing nothing in response to what happened would be irresponsible, disgraceful.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  March 21, 2019

      “Guts” in this case is showing empathy with victims, standing beside them. You might not agree with how they live their lives in all areas but they are going through a harrowing time so you are making a small gesture of support.

      New Zealand’s reputation has suffered as a result of this act and I think Ardern is doing her best to minute the damage.

      Adopting Sharia Law for a day is a nonsense.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  March 21, 2019

        Minimize the damage. I would appreciate small gestures of support if we were going through, and in a wider sense we all are, a tragedy like this.

        The Turkish President is just behaving like Trump, using a tragedy for personal gain.

        • MaureenW

           /  March 21, 2019

          Interesting that you have boundaries and that only small gestures are appropriate. Tarrant, at this point, is good for nothing – why feed him? Why not let the victims decide what happens to him (according to their custom). After all, this is about an horrific crime, not a head-scarf as we are repeatedly reminded.

          • Who keeps bringing up the head scarf thing? It is a minor thing that has been used by some to try and create a controversy, offence.

            Some of those I have seen condemning wearing a scarf I haven’t seen condemning the killings.

          • Patzcuaro

             /  March 21, 2019

            @ Maureen you seem to have a odd way of looking at things, it is like you miss the big picture while you are dissecting the trivia.

            • MaureenW

               /  March 21, 2019

              Which big picture do you feel I’ve missed?

          • Griff.

             /  March 21, 2019

            Because we are better than that.
            Showing empathy for the victims is not a capitulation to barbaric practices of some who share in their religion.
            We are still a liberal democracy where we obey a just legal processes and treat even the most evil with at lest a little human dignity and compassion.

            Spending the rest of your life confined to a bare eight by ten cell separated from almost all contact except your disinterested jailers is probably as horrific a future as he deserves.
            May he live long …….

    • Duker

       /  March 21, 2019

      We already know you a revolting person M… who thinks its ‘curiosity’ to view snuff videos

      • MaureenW

         /  March 21, 2019

        This comment says more about you Duker, no need to project your twisted thoughts on me.

  3. Ray

     /  March 21, 2019

    Well said Peter.
    I can not imagine any circumstance that allows the shooting of 100 people,while at prayers, even if we were in a state of war and thought it would allow the elimination of fanatical leaders the collateral damage would be unacceptable.

    I have travelled in several Muslim countries and have always found the people universally welcoming and friendly, they will invite you into their homes and families at the drop of a hat.
    Regarding the wearing of head scarfs, certainly in the more moderate countries they are not compulsory and you often see to women walking, one scarfed, one not, though when they attend the mosque I think it is always done and they certainly appreciate if foreigners are modest to their standards. Of course the Catholics did the same thing until recently.

    I am no fan of the PM but feel she has not put a foot wrong, so far.
    It is difficult to be a feminist and whole hearted sympathise with a religion that has quite the opposite features.

    I am concerned that the call for censorship could lead to bad outcomes in the future.
    And the call for the names of all the people who signed the petition against the UN convention, egging of Crusaders sponsor’s vehicles bear the worst signs of witch-hunting.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  March 21, 2019

      I have seen Muslim women in Hamilton, some with the scarf, some not, Many of the scarves are lovely material. Schoolgirls have them in the school colour. The girl at Pak & Save wears a longsleeved version of the uniform and a black scarf (and makes the P & S uniform look chic, which seems impossible)

  4. Blazer

     /  March 21, 2019

    Tipene who I would wager is a European and Al make [deleted] with their twisted,selfish logic’.

    • Corky

       /  March 21, 2019

      Yes..so you have told us. Thanks for leaving my name out for a change.

  5. NOEL

     /  March 21, 2019

    It’s not a new law specially for this occasion so why the fanfare now.?

    • Duker

       /  March 21, 2019

      What fanfare ?
      Ignorance of the existing law seems widespread.. and its severe penalties

  6. Corky

     /  March 21, 2019

    I would boil things down to this:

    All things regarding Islam must be handled with extreme care. Even as we tautoko them through evil not of their making. New Zealand has done an exceptional job of that.

    The telling point will be when the fog of shock lifts from our nation. When the Muslim community has a chance to reflect…along with New Zealanders in general.

    Careful observation at this point will be essential.

    • Corky

       /  March 21, 2019

      Observations for:

      1 -Some in the Muslim community upset over the delay of releasing their loved ones.
      [Deleted]
      3- Government taking liberties with privacy and unconstitutional actions.
      [Deleted]
      5- Angry gun owners.

      • Most firearms owners support law changes.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  March 21, 2019

          Of course they are distressed at the delay. It’s bad enough without that as well. Anyone would be finding this stressful under the circumstances.

          The rest is just the usual Corky-speak and not worth dignifying with a response.

  7. Finbaar Rustle

     /  March 21, 2019

    Same people saying the same thing and nothing changes.

  8. duperez

     /  March 21, 2019

    The perspective of events that time affords will likely still feature the word ‘petty.’

    And reflections on the irony of those who’ve accused the Prime Minister of opportunism.

    In any dramatic event the range of meanings taken and emotions stirred will be infinite. Given circumstances they will be transient and layered. Empathy is not a whimsical beast. How far it is buried, how easily it becomes evident and how deep the layers run is hard to judge. It seems from reactions to the Christchurch massacre there are many who have tonnes of it freely available which unhesitatingly emerges.

    Then again it seems in some it is such a deep seated quality that, if it exists at all, is buried under massive mountains of steadfast parochialism, insecurity, ignorance and lack of humanity. That they attack and splurge is no surprise. Everyone’s normal default setting is to dive into their own well of humanity. When it’s as deep as a thimble you’re going to get the some of the sort of stuff around the edges that we’re getting.

    Mostly though there’s some triumph to be celebrated. Quite surely there are some who have recognised a new them that they didn’t know existed.

  9. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 21, 2019

    I call blatant bullshit on your title and accusation it was in any way defending or supporting the terrorist or his crime, PG. There is zero evidence to support that and it is a gross libel.

    People may legitimately differ on what the best responses to that atrocity should be without being falsely accused of supporting it.

    The perpetrator may have had legal weapons and illegally converted them into illegal weapons. That seems the most likely scenario as far as I can see.

    As far as Islam is concerned I want to see the children of immigrants free to choose their own religious path appropriate to their lives in this country. I want to see our patterns of inter-racial marriage continue and not degenerate into isolated and segregated religious communities. I do not want to see any pattern of gender inequality develop.

    I believe those are reasonable aspirations unaffected by the actions of a demented homicidal lunatic and we should continue to support them. I do not believe grief and anguish is reason to ban the articulation of such views, nor to fling the kind of accusations you have here.

    • Blazer

       /  March 21, 2019

      no libel at all there Al.

      You view the world through the narrow portal of a priveleged ,white male,who has had every advantage in life.

      Amazingly you have got to 70 plus without being involved in a physical confrontation.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 21, 2019

        Nothing amazing about that, B. It is a choice as to who you mix with and how you handle people and problems.

    • Corky

       /  March 21, 2019

      Great post, Alan. Articulating what I have trouble expressing.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  March 21, 2019

        Alan, Tipene gave the impression of wanting to use the massacre to play word games. If you read his comments to me and others, this is very obvious. He was trying to shit-stir and succeeded, at the cost of making himself look like a callous smart-arse. It was so appallingly inappropriate that I could hardly believe it.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  March 21, 2019

          I’m only commenting on the specific comment PG highlighted and I had responded to. There were other threads involving Tipene I didn’t follow and have no opinion on.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  March 21, 2019

            There was one in particular, the first one, I think, where he was being a sniggering smart-alec and scoring points in a really crass way.

  10. Tipene

     /  March 21, 2019

    Hi Pete,

    Firstly, I appreciate you highlighting my post.

    In doing so, you have affirmed your blogs central premise of affirming free speech, whilst exercising your right to vociferously disagree with me on the matters raised – publically.

    Whilst I am not in agreement with your conclusion that I am “attempting to excuse and defend the Christchurch terrorist”, and whilst I am mindful that you calling “petty” or “bullshit” on the points I raise is not raising evidenced-based rebuttal on what I have written, I accept that we have a different perspective on the matters raised.

    And this is one of my central points in my post.

    To NOT be allowed to have this discussion publically because we MIGHT OFFEND (fill in the gap with a specific identity politik group), because of reasons pertaining to (fill in the gap regarding a specific popular rationale) is in my opinion too high a cost for a civil society to pay, regardless of the circumstances in play.

    This position my be unpalatable to you, offensive even, but an unpalatable or offensive position (offence really in in the eye of the beholder) does not make that position less worthy of discussion and discourse.

    “Tolerance, inclusivity, and diversity” if these principles are to mean anything, must also mean engaging with positions we don’t like.

    I have not shared my emotional response to the Christchurch terror attacks, because frankly, that is no-ones business but my own.

    It seems that this decision frustrates you to the point of you now arbitrarily assigning me a position on the attacks somewhere along the spectrum of acceptance to condemnation.

    This does not make you guilty of a libel – this just affirms your subjective humanity – you wish to make sense of things – fair enough – as do we all.

    There is a saying that goes “Wisdom will be proved right (or not) by what results from it”.

    I guess we will wait and see where this all ends up, and whether the cluster of emotive decisions being made today, will be considered wise decisions in the future.

    Tipene

    • Duker

       /  March 21, 2019

      Tipene you are a liar
      ‘* Police arresting people for exercising their sovereign right to watch an online video.”

      One, they are only arresting people who “distributing” a snuff video which is classified as the worst sort of material and as such subject to the highest penalties for doing so. There is no sovereign right that you speak of and no one is arrested for ‘just watching’ ( My view they are sick people)
      * Passing laws designed to significantly disarm a law abiding, gun owning population.
      Gun ownership is a highly regulated activity , like drivers licenses , licenses to run pubs. Its only appropriate that loopholes which allow a terrorist to get easily through are closed. Other instances of gun license holders are law abiding as you claim, one not that long ago purchased 50 firearms legally over a couple of years , which were on-sold to gangs – who couldnt buy openly. The country doesnt need to have guns in circulation which can have the remotest possibility of being changed to a mass murder gun by legally buying large magazines

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 21, 2019

        That’s just dumb. The whole world watched the horror of the twin tower attacks endlessly. And innumerable deaths real and simulated in documentaries, news reports, videos and movies.

        The Chief Censor was quite clear it is illegal to watch it so the police are stuck with selectively prosecuting a bad law with a worse regulator.

        • MaureenW

           /  March 21, 2019

          re Twin Towers, this footage was looped on every tv channel in Australia for at least 48 hours. There was nothing else to see – including the jumpers.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  March 21, 2019

            We didn’t see the jumpers’ smashed bodies or the people dying in the towers.

            • MaureenW

               /  March 21, 2019

              Don’t forget Vietnam, the first televised war

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  March 21, 2019

              There were films of war before that, of course. And photos before that. I have a book of old war photos and the first one is very early.

          • Blazer

             /  March 21, 2019

            here you go ….probably…single…

    • I am mindful that you calling “petty” or “bullshit” on the points I raise is not raising evidenced-based rebuttal on what I have written, I accept that we have a different perspective on the matters raised.

      I called bullshit not just on your lack of evidence, but on your factually incorrect claims. Your response made no attempt to support your claims with evidence. That’s your omission, not mine.

      And this is one of my central points in my post.

      To NOT be allowed to have this discussion publically because we MIGHT OFFEND (fill in the gap with a specific identity politik group), because of reasons pertaining to (fill in the gap regarding a specific popular rationale) is in my opinion too high a cost for a civil society to pay, regardless of the circumstances in play.

      This position my be unpalatable to you, offensive even, but an unpalatable or offensive position (offence really in in the eye of the beholder) does not make that position less worthy of discussion and discourse.

      Your comment was not just offensive, it was an attack on a group that were the target of a horrendous atrocity, and it was an attack on people doing what they could to deal with the atrocity.

      In your original comment and in your response here you have expressed no sympathy nor acknowledgement of the grievous harm that this attack has perpetrated. To me your silence on that is telling – it appears as at least tacit support of what the attacks did to people. And your response did nothing to argue against this.

      I have not shared my emotional response to the Christchurch terror attacks, because frankly, that is no-ones business but my own.

      It seems that this decision frustrates you to the point of you now arbitrarily assigning me a position on the attacks somewhere along the spectrum of acceptance to condemnation.

      It doesn’t frustrate me. It saddens me that you have done nothing to condemn the attack, but instead choose to condemn victims of the attack and condemn people helping those affected by the attack.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 22, 2019

        As far as I can see your allegation that Tipene condemns victims of the attack is entirely without foundation.

  11. PDB

     /  March 21, 2019

    To be fair to Tipene (and I & many people would disagree with much of what they’ve said the last few days or are critical of the timing of some of the comments so soon after this tragic event) the accusation that they are “supporting what the killer did” is a step too far & not backed up by what Tipene has actually posted on here.

    • Duker

       /  March 21, 2019

      PG had it right
      ‘. You are in effect defending this act of terrorism, or at least defending things that made it possible.”

      People would take the natural and ordinary meanings that PG has written , and the full context of what is being said including his lies.

      Being clever with words doesnt take away what tipene has meant.

      • MaureenW

         /  March 21, 2019

        Have a lie down. Tipene states it isn’t what was meant, I didn’t read it as meaning that, clearly nor did others here. If you read it like that, perhaps its you who is trying to be clever with words (that aren’t there).

      • PDB

         /  March 21, 2019

        You opinion would be valid if you could only post exactly what Tipene said that 100% confirms they “support what the killer did”. Happy to change my opinion if you do so.

        However you can’t and therefore have to talk about ‘subjective’ opinion as if it was fact. What you personally think they meant means squat when we are talking facts.

  12. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 21, 2019

    Today’s news – Italian police foil a Somali immigrant’s attempt to burn alive 50 children in a bus by pulling the kids out a broken door:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/20/bus-full-children-set-alight-angry-driver-retaliation-migrant/

    Dealing with this stuff needs cool heads, kind hearts and very rational minds.

    • Blazer

       /  March 21, 2019

      I believe this is called behaving like a SQUIRREL…Al.🐱‍💻

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 21, 2019

        Hardly on a day when apparently any critique of Muslim immigration is supporting and defending terrorism.

    • MaureenW

       /  March 21, 2019

      If women are being encouraged to wear head scarves, men should don a fake beard. Personally I find it cringeworthy tokenism. Didn’t see the Middle East in mini-skirts or wearing western clothes as a show of solidarity on 9/11 – nor would I have been heartened if they did.

      • patupaiarehe

         /  March 21, 2019

        Now you’re just being silly. In case you hadn’t noticed, not all muslim men have facial hair.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  March 21, 2019

          That’s rather the author’s point. Not all Muslim women wear head coverings. I think it’s also Maureen’s point.

          • Blazer

             /  March 22, 2019

            Maureen does not have a point.
            The scarves are not…fake.

            • MaureenW

               /  March 22, 2019

              Have you got yours on today Blazer?

            • Blazer

               /  March 22, 2019

              what was that?
              Are you mumbling because you’re wearing your …fake beard?

            • Gezza

               /  March 22, 2019

              Herald:
              HEADSCARF FOR HARMONY

              • Open to both men and women,
              • No rules around how to wear your headscarf or what colour,
              • Event runs all day,
              • Participants can wear their headscarf for as long as they like,
              • Men can wear it draped over their shoulders or wrapped around their wrist.

              Stuff

              “I think as long as it’s respectful, we’ve been assured the gesture will be appreciated.”

              They had received a positive response to their plans, with some men also intending to wear scarves on their shoulders or heads as was done in some countries, Ashman said.

  13. Mother

     /  March 22, 2019

    Sometimes when people feel deeply about someone else’s trauma they cannot or will not discuss it. I noticed last Friday that Tipene was involved in some sort of practical sympathetic activity for the victims. He possibly carried a heavy load.

    I am saddened by what appears to be a misrepresentation of Tipene. Blogging is like that especially when emotions run high.

    May I mention that trivial scarf issue?
    I think –
    It is highly probable that Muslim women in NZ will increasingly adopt a casual and/or fashionable approach to this practise as part of their desire to draw people into their religion. And it will work, if people don’t soon lay down their self righteousness and sympathy for human martyrdom.

    It’s very important we figure out the difference between Islam and Christianity.

    • Kimbo

       /  March 22, 2019

      Is relatively simple I would suggest. I usually find the New Testament verse John 1:14:

      “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

      …clarifies sufficiently for members of the two faiths (and also Judaism too) the essential distinctive of Christian monotheism.

      Which means, in the light of the current national tragedy, we can move on and find ways to disagree with requisite courtesy and respect, and set our hearts and minds to the important task of living together in peace, yet also in ways that maintain our respective integrity.

  1. An attempt to excuse and defend the Christchurch terrorist — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition