Another person in custody for “making or copying objectionable material” after Christchurch attacks

There has been a third arrest (that I’m aware of) for “knowingly making or copying objectionable material”, with a Christchurch schoolboy being remanded in custody.

NZ Herald:  Christchurch teen arrested for objectionable material after mosque terror attacks

A Christchurch schoolboy has been arrested for objectionable material after the mosque terror attacks.

The teenager cannot be named because of legal reasons. His school is also protected from being made public.

The boy appeared in the Youth Court in Christchurch yesterday. He faces one charge of knowingly making or copying objectionable material.

He was refused bail and was remanded in custody.

He is due back in court next month.

The Herald understands police were alerted after concerns about the boy’s behaviour.

All three reported as arrested have been remanded in custody, which seems harsh given the charges, but all of them seem to have been involved in more than just copying or distributing the mosque shootings video or the killer’s manifesto (in the latest case it isn’t clear what material was involved but the presumption is it is related to the mosque shootings).

There have been other unrelated cases appear before the courts since the Christchurch terror attacks.

An 18-year-old Christchurch student, who has interim name suppression, has also been charged with distributing a livestream and of showing a photograph of the Deans Ave mosque where 42 Muslims were shot dead with the message “target acquired” and further online messaging allegedly inciting extreme violence.

Christchurch businessman Philip Neville Arps, 44, appeared in court appeared in court last week on charges of distributing footage of one of the mosque shootings.

Arps, who runs an insulation business, faces two charges of distributing the livestream “of the multiple murder victims at the Deans Ave Mosque”.

The alleged offending occurred on March 16, the day after the shootings at two Christchurch mosques, in which 50 people died and dozens were injured.

More on Arps:  Nazi-themed company owner charged with possessing objectionable material

Beneficial Insulation, which Arps owns, features a number of Nazi-related themes in its name and branding.

The company’s white extremist branding and Arps’ racist views, which he promotes online, sparked a public outcry in the wake of the mass shooting in Christchurch that left 50 people dead with another 30 still in hospital.

Stuff has also sighted an angry email from Beneficial Insulation owner Phil Arps sent to a customer which was signed off with a false Adolf Hitler quote and featured right wing extremist views.

Beneficial Insulation’s company logo is a sunwheel, or black sun, which was appropriated by Nazis.

Beneficial Insulation also charges $14.88 per metre for insulation – 14.88 is a hate symbol popular with white extremists.

The company’s website www.BIIG.co.nz, is an acronym for the company’s full name Beneficial Insulation Installs Guaranteed. BIIg was the name of a barracks at Auschwitz concentration camp, operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II and the Holocaust.

The company’s staff wear camouflage print uniform.

Being remanded in custody means that the police, the prosecutor and judges all considered it appropriate in the circumstances. Without knowing all the details it is not possible to know whether this is concerning or not.

There have been other arrests following the shootings – Police arrest several people for ‘inciting fear’ after Christchurch terror attacks

In the days since, police have arrested several people, including a 25-year-old Auckland man who is accused of threatening members of the public.

The man allegedly addressed people on Stoddard Rd in Mt Roskill and said: “I’m going to kill someone … F*ck New Zealand.”

He appeared in the Auckland District Court on Tuesday and has been charged with offensive behaviour or language. He was remanded in custody and will appear in court again next month.

Another remanded in custody.

A Wairarapa woman was also was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial disharmony after a message was posted to her Facebook page.

Police said on Wednesday a decision was still to be made about whether the woman, believed to be in her late 20s, will be charged.

Senior Sergeant Jennifer Hansen said social media post “upset a number of people because it referred to the events in Christchurch”.

The policewoman said the post was brought down relatively quickly, but not before “a number of people had already seen it and raised concerns”.

A charge of inciting racial disharmony under the Human Rights Act can be laid against a person who “publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting” to other people, on the grounds of colour, race, ethnicity or national origins.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a $7000 fine.

It may be that the police and the courts are taking a hard line approach to any behaviour related to the Christchurch shootings to try to deter any escalation in violence or threats of violence.

43 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  30th March 2019

    We are not seeing justice being seen to be done so.long as people are being imprisoned without trial and with suppressed evidence apparently for thought crimes.

    This has to be a serious concern.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  30th March 2019

      It is not uncommon to be remanded without bail for serious offences. We are not talking about thought crimes because at present it is impossible to know what people are thinking. They are going past thinking and are acting or, committing a crime by publishing.
      For example I often think posts are ridiculous but I refrain from posting.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  30th March 2019

        Indeed. If a serial rapist is caught in the act, not many people would want him out on bail.

    • Ray

       /  30th March 2019

      The rules on getting bail are pretty liberal as except in a couple of cases bail is a right especially for a youth where is almost always automatic.
      To not get bail points at some serious concerns about either more violent offending, a criminal past or treason.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  30th March 2019

        I would say so. It’s pointless speculating too much, but this is obviously something more serious than a schoolboy prank. This youth is 18, not a child, and must be assumed to know what he’s doing. If he’s old enough to drink, vote, marry, be conscripted and have held a driver’s license for 3 years, he can’t be excused for being a silly schoolboy.

  2. Corky

     /  30th March 2019

    Yep. I would be concerned… as I have been from day one. This is what happens when you knee-jerk. To be fair to the police, they know they can’t handle situations similar to those happening overseas. They don’t have the manpower or resources to handle constant threats.
    So they are taking preemptive action. As I previously said… we are on our way to being a police state.

    But this:

    ”The boy appeared in the Youth Court in Christchurch yesterday. He was refused bail and was remanded in custody”

    I could have a decent rap sheet… then give my barista a good hiding for not using organic A2 milk in my flat white. I would be processed by police and have a chance of getting bail.

    Before any idiot posts and says…”yes, but you would also have a good chance of being remanded in custody.” That is also true. It just seems to me there’s no reason to keep this boy in custody. What’s he going to do? Flee the country and become radicalised if he’s remanded at large?

    • “It just seems to me there’s no reason to keep this boy in custody. ”

      There is no way of you (or the public) knowing the reasons why he was kept in custody, so I don’t know how you can think that.

      If someone threatened violence in response to the attack, and they were not charged or charged and remanded at large, and then did something violent or incited violence, the police would be absolutely dumped on.

      We can’t know if the police AND THE JUDGE have over-reacted, but they have a very difficult job to do.

      • Corky

         /  30th March 2019

        ”There is no way of you (or the public) knowing the reasons why he was kept in custody, so I don’t know how you can think that.”

        No, I don’t know the reasons. That’s the problem. There is no reason for the Police to be vague. I fear Police are using this vagueness as a front. They tried this with me once while trying to execute an invalid search warrant.

        What’s wrong with Police saying he’s been held in custody because of:

        1- National Security.
        2- Mental health issues.
        3- Previous criminal convictions?

        Therefore given the sparse release of facts, I can only assume he is being held on the objectionable material charge…so in my opinion, being held in custody is an over reaction
        on the part of police.

        • Patzcuaro

           /  30th March 2019

          I was talking to a detective the other day and he was saying that they are stretched at the moment because people with alsorts of grievances are saying “they are going to a mosque”. End result is a lot of wasted police time on wild goose chases. Not their fault the politicians didn’t prioritize firearms control years ago.

          • Corky

             /  30th March 2019

            It has nothing to do with firearms. Why do you keep repeating this falsehood?
            In a post moderated by Pete, explained at time why this wasn’t a planned attack. And how a real attack would have been.

            The overriding factor is INTENT. If you have that, you don’t need a gun to kill people. There are a million ways to do that. You just have to be more inventive.

            • Corky

               /  30th March 2019

              “I”

            • Duker

               /  30th March 2019

              “It has nothing to do with firearms. Why do you keep repeating this falsehood?”

              Australia hasnt had a similar mass muder terrorist attack since they removed the ‘semis’. Indeed The Australian came here to do so.
              The Sydney coffee shop terrorism was with a sort of cut down shotgun, and one person was killed by Moni while another hostage and Moni were killed by police.

              The evidence is that these large magazine guns empower inadequate people to do horrendous things. We cant do much about inadequate people but firearms – which are highly regulated in anycase , duh – can be restricted even further.

            • Corky

               /  30th March 2019

              Obviously you and I see things differently. Here are some interesting stats without the ‘duh.’

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

              http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

              Now the Port Arthur massacre is interesting. There’s the official version,and the conspiracy theory version.

              In Conspiracy version, many witnesses point to a dark haired man firing in
              a manner later identified as very advanced military style technique. Apparent some police officers still have concerns over the case and refuse to talk about it.

              The main point from the Conspiracy theory – most victims died from head shots.

              So I go to a skeptics site. They deconstruct the conspiracy theory. The head shots are no mystery according to them. Byrant was such a lousy shot he misses from longer ranges.. and had to get within meters of the victims to shot them.

              Interesting.

              And Wiki gives another account…including the media manipulating Bryants picture to make him look more deranged.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant

              The point is..if Bryant had to get close to his victims to shoot them, even without a semi he would have had a high tally. At least into the 20’s.

              Reading Wiki, Australia, public reaction wise is similar to what we are going through regarding gun control.

      • Duker

         /  30th March 2019

        Not getting bail usually is closely related to the seriousness of the charge – in terms of the maximum penalty.
        “Penalties involving Objectionable (banned) publications are much higher. The penalty for knowingly possessing an Objectionable publication is a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, and the penalty for knowingly making or distributing an Objectionable publication is a maximum of 14 years imprisonment.– Chief censor

        This is the reason for refusing bail right there and that the material is intentional mass murder of course.
        Im wondering if this ‘student’ is at a private boarding school ( Why else would the school be involved) A few names of schools come to mind [ I wont mention them as its speculation].

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  30th March 2019

          Those penalties are outrageous for anything other plotting terrorism or sexual abuse. You sound as though you support gross injustice so long as it is legal. I don’t.

          • Duker

             /  30th March 2019

            Plenty of people have done serious time for ‘possession or distribution of banned material’
            So you have had a long crusade about those sentences or its a new thing only because you’are relaxed’ about this particular sort of banned material

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th March 2019

              It’s a new thing only because the censor has become even more stupid than usual and is now banning history.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  30th March 2019

          Corky always seems to know and to have known all along. This is not the first time he has made such a claim.

          He knows no more than the rest of us, and is just trying to sound clever. There is much less chance of doing a massacre on this scale with an ordinary gun, still less any other weapon or even poison.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  30th March 2019

            I find it hard to believe that this young man is being kept in custody without good reason.

            Some people seem not to realise the seriousness of what happened here a fortnight ago.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th March 2019

              I’m waiting to hear what the good reason is and why this juvenile is being jailed when thousands of others who viewed the video haven’t.

            • I think it’s important we find this out, but cases like this are often initially placed under suppression, at least unntil the court has had time to consider it properly.

              “The Herald understands police were alerted after concerns about the boy’s behaviour.”

              It sounds like it was more than just privately viewing something. The police would never find out unless something else brought it to their attention.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  30th March 2019

              You don’t know that that’s why he’s there; and as he is, as I said, old enough to vote, marry, drink, be ordered to die in a war and other things only permitted to adults, he’s hardly a juvenile.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th March 2019

              The case the other day where a young man posted an old photo on FB which eventually led to his father killing himself shows that police involvement can be triggered by small events.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  30th March 2019

              I suspect that the father had more issues than that.

  3. David

     /  30th March 2019

    Someone needs to ask Ardern if she thinks its OK to lock up a schoolboy for being an idiot, compassion and all that sort of thing. If there is some new approach and gestapo type tactics being applied under the cloak of the shooting then that hardly fits with her image.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  30th March 2019

      Unfortunately we already have one idiot on remand and 50 ordinary people underground.

    • It has nothing to do with Ardern, and she would be very unwise to say anything about a matter before the court.

      • David

         /  30th March 2019

        [Deleted, don’t make accusations with no substantiation – PG] to use this to lock up a few undesirables and of course plod will over reach.
        Ban this, stop that, lock them up its all getting out of hand.

        • Duker

           /  30th March 2019

          Do you David have a self interest in saying ‘its getting out of hand’ over possession of this material ? Those 50 people dont get a say, but I dont think we should listen to those people who says ‘its getting out of hand’ .- it did last friday.
          Anybody involved in passing it on is in the most serious of trouble , especially if they are passing on to teenagers

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  30th March 2019

      Hardly Gestapo tactics. He won’t be tortured or shot. The Gestapo comparison is an absurd one.

      The History Master at my high school was in Auschwitz and not only had the tattoo to prove it, he had the effects of having his nails pulled out (all of them) and his hands and feet smashed with a sledgehammer. The Gestapo did this to people as well to make them betray their organisation and the people in it. Some did (I would) but many didn’t.

      I don’t think that anyone on remand here will be subject to anything like that. It’s an insult to our police and the victims of German brutality.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  30th March 2019

      I would guess that he’s in custody for something that is more than idiocy. At 18 he’s an adult, and old enough to know the consequences; there’s been enough publicity about it.

      • Duker

         /  30th March 2019

        people get killed because of idiocy… a reckless punch ..etc
        the penalties have been well publicised- its 14 years maximum. Even a light sentence under those penalties could be 6 months in jail .
        Actually a deterrent sentance of that order is at least needed, along with the others held.
        If hes truly rependent , he will plead guilty and be happy with 6 months.

        After all jail time has been a feature of previous convictions over the years of possession of the worst sort of banned material, because it has a political angle doesnt make it any less objectionable

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  30th March 2019

          What people do by way of idiocy is irrelevant. There’s no sense in comparing crimes with each other when they are totally different.

          If he’s been disseminating material that incites terrorism, that’s rather more than idiocy. That would be deliberate and planned.

          If his life is ruined by a sentence, too bad. He’s an adult in law, he can’t expect to be treated like a silly child who didn’t know what he was doing,

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  30th March 2019

    I would hope that jailing these people is justified but I would require that if it wasn’t then they should be compensated.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  30th March 2019

      Downticked by another vacant lot

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  30th March 2019

        Not me, I can’t up or down tick.

        I would guess that the police have better things to do than arrest people on a whim.

        At 18, one is old enough to drink legally, marry without parental consent, vote, be obliged (men only, of course) to go and fight in a war….one is an adult at 18.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  30th March 2019

          Could still be at school.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  30th March 2019

            That’s not the point. He is, but in law he’s an adult.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th March 2019

              Yes, but law needs to make common sense allowanced.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  30th March 2019

              Allowances.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  30th March 2019

              Commonsense won’t come into it if this young man is disseminating anything like terrorism.

  5. lurcher1948

     /  30th March 2019

    Why draw Jacinda Ardern our PM into the debate,just saying..she leaves risk assessment to the professionals

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  30th March 2019

      Once the information about the case is public it will be time to consider whether the law is fit for purpose or being abused. The disaster of the war on drugs should be a warning for legislative overreach.