Arps pleaded guilty to distributing footage of mosque attacks

Christchurch man Philip Neville Arps has pleaded guilty of distributing video of the Christchurch mosque attacks. He told police that modified coverage (with cross hairs and a kill count added) was ‘awesome’.

That sounds despicable, but does it justify a prison sentence? He was remanded in custody when arrested, and seems likely to get a custodial sentence.

Stuff: Philip Arps guilty of sharing livestream of Christchurch mosque massacre

A Christchurch business owner who admitted sharing the Christchurch terror attack livestream told police he thought it was “awesome”.

Philip Neville Arps pleaded guilty on Friday to two charges of distributing the mosque murders video and was remanded in custody for sentencing on June 14.

When questioned by police about the massacre –  in which 50 people were murdered and 39 more shot and wounded – he replied: “I could not give a f…, mate.”

So maybe I shouldn’t give a fuck if he is imprisoned.

Arps asked for Christchurch District Court Judge Stephen O’Driscoll to have him assessed for a possible home detention sentence, but the judge ruled it out, indicating Arps would be jailed.

His lack of empathy doesn’t help his case. His sentence is likely to be affected by whether he shows any remorse or not.

I see some need for deterrent sentences  – this seems well up the seriousness scale. If a strong signal needs to be sent he seems a good candidate for copping a jail term.

He is one of 10 people police have taken action against for objectionable publication offences relating to the video of the Christchurch terror attack, including a 16-year-old male.

I presume (hope) these are the worst examples that have involved more than just downloading or viewing the video.

Leave a comment

49 Comments

  1. Gezza

     /  27th April 2019

    Christchurch man Philip Neville Arps has pleaded guilty of distributing video of the Christchurch mosque attacks. He told police that modified coverage (with cross hairs and a kill count added) was ‘awesome’. That sounds despicable, but does it justify a prison sentence?

    Absolutely, imo.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  27th April 2019

      His statement is irrelevant, he’s not going inside for being a monster but for breaking the law.

      If he thinks that killing children is awesome and not worth giving a fuck about, he might find that other prisoners disagree and show him that they do. Even the roughest criminals seem to dislike childkillers (and by extension, possibly, toerags like him)

      Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  27th April 2019

        His statement is irrelevant

        Then why has it been made known by the police, and widely disseminated by the media?

        Disclaimer (which will likely be ignored by some in the hysteria/moral panic that is being manufactured): Arps is a despicable human being, who, on the facts of the case and how the existing law is likely to be applied, will likely be convicted and who may very well go to prison. The real issue for all of us is and our civil freedoms remanins…is that law, and it’s application good and just, irrespective of Arps’ moral and social failings?

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  27th April 2019

          I meant that he’s not going inside because of that, any more than my friend walked free because when he robbed a bank he was courteous…the bank was just as robbed.

          Arps wasn’t arrested because he’s an apology for a human being but because he committed a crime.

          Only a vile person would disseminate such a horror, so the two are intertwined; he’s going inside because he was vile enough to do this disgusting crime.

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  27th April 2019

            Arps wasn’t arrested because he’s an apology for a human being but because he committed a crime.

            No, that’s a false dichotomy IMHO. Charging someone is neither a strictly legal nor objective process, indeed there are issues of “perceived public good”, making a punitive example to discourage others, and the likelihood of winning, including the practical task swaying a potential jury. It was because he is indeed “an apology for a human being” that Arps ticks all those boxes and was likely selected from a range of potential candidates.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  27th April 2019

              If he was the only one of the people who did this, you might have a point.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  27th April 2019

              But he’s one of 10.

              QED.

            • Kimbo

               /  27th April 2019

              Ten of likely hundreds, maybe even thousands who still have the material stored. So to prepare the public for increased surveillance and censorship/loss of freedom, the law-administering authorities present it as a wholly-justifiable “good”, by first picking the lowest hanging fruit – obvious offenders, and highlighting the most unsympathetic of all of them, Arps.

              Is the same pitch Louisa Wall is currently attempting to push her “media do no harm duty of care” legislative idea. “My motives are entirely good and noble (if dubiously Utopian) – to rid Aotearoa of racism. And here is this vile example of media racism which has made people unsafe (again, a dubiously Utopian definition). Therefore (with the conditioning of moral panic which dulls the critical faculties and discourages nay-sayers in place), what kind of morally-deficiently person would object to this legislation?”

          • Jacqueline

             /  27th April 2019

            Kitty, I know a gentle law abiding compassionate youth who said that he had no inclination to view the nasty video until it was made illegal to do so.

            Is it possible Mr Arps is simply trying to prove a loving point? I like to think so. Surely a man his age would be grown out of attention seeking stunts.

            I said, ‘a loving point’. Yes, fighting for our freedoms is loving.

            Just an idea. I don’t know Mr Arps.

            Communism has hurt many more people than Nazism. It’s unhelpful to have Nazi symbols on his van. But if you don’t know the man, you can’t judge.

            Maybe he’s just always wanted to know what prison is like. Some people live their lives curiously.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  27th April 2019

              The gentle, compassionate boy who wanted to see people being murdered and injured has a damned odd way of showing his gentleness and compassion.

              You might think that saying that someone saying that they don’t give a fuck is making a loving point; I don’t. Nor do I see describing a video made by a murderer as he kills his victims as ‘awesome’ as ‘a loving point’. Fighting for freedom ? A NeoNazi ? You cannot know what the Nazis did. Nobody uses their symbols without knowing what they’re doing.

              I suspect that he’s aware of what prison’s like.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  27th April 2019

              I can judge by his words and actions. Fighting for our freedoms by laughing at and distributing a video of a massacre ? If your children had been massacred by a killer who filmed himself doing it, would you want perverts giving themselves a thrill by watching their terror and deaths ? If the 3 year old was your grandson, what would you think of people like Arps ?

              Would you invite this man to your home ?

              Would you be pleased if your daughter married him ?

  2. Duker

     /  27th April 2019

    His sentence is likely to be affected by his previous convictions more than anything else . Im assuming he has a long rap sheet. In his favour has played the guilty plea card Already.
    hes needs a crash course in empthay if his probation report is not be be bleak.
    And yes possessing and distributing banned offensive material even for cleanskins gets prison time- just that it was extreme porn. The law covers both under the same crime.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  27th April 2019

      It’ll be interesting to see if he’s even capable of empathy. Some people have a personality type that seems to make them unable to experience it.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  27th April 2019

        I have met one or two, like the hag who married our late friend.

        Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  27th April 2019

    It’s always easiest to convict nasty or just abnormal people. That’s how most injustices occur and have forever. Instance the witch burnings.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  27th April 2019

      One needs to compare like with like.

      He is beyond nasty, but he’s going inside for a crime for which there is so much evidence that he can’t plead not guilty.

      Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  27th April 2019

        Alan can talk for himself, but I think his point is it is easier to enforce a bad law by choosing nasty or just abnormal people from the potential range for conviction. I have a friend, who is not nasty or abnormal, who did have the footage stored* long after the chief censor issued his warning, who wouldn’t have been the poster-child that Arps presents.

        * he didn’t want to rely on any third party to tell him the facts – that is how he lives all of his life when it comes to important decisions.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  27th April 2019

          I disagree; the law is the law. If your friend had been caught, he’d have been charged and serve him right.

          ‘Nice people’ have been charged and sentenced. A Wanganui teacher, very popular and much liked by the boys was done for having underage (just) sex with boys who were willing participants and didn’t see themselves as victims. My friend who did 7 years for bank robbery was called the politest bank robber in Australia, but that didn’t affect the sentence (10 years reduced to 7 for good behaviour)

          I would have thought that in this case, the facts seen on the news spoke for themselves. The ambulances, police, witnesses…why did your friend need to see the people being massacred ? Did he not believe that they had been ?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  27th April 2019

            Why do people watch war movies or the millions of tv and movie programs showing gratuitous violence and killings?

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  27th April 2019

              Because they get their kicks from such things.

              This was a real life one and the stars of this film were not consulted about appearing in it.

              They didn’t get up at the end of the day, wash off the stage blood and go home.

              I was involved with a King Lear in which the line ‘Out, vile jelly !’ was accompanied by what looked like Gloucester’s eyes really being gouged out and flung down onto the stage. I would have known, even had I not been involved in making the eyes and blood, that the actor hadn’t really had his eyes gouged out.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th April 2019

              The stars of most videoed wars and catastrophes don’t volunteer either. Doesn’t stop people from watching. Frankly I don’t see much moral distinction whether it is real or acted. I’m repulsed by both.

            • Gezza

               /  27th April 2019

              It’s because they’re steeped in it from an early age. It’s all around them, even in just reading history. And because they’re not witnessing it directly or it just seems to be something that happened long ago or they know is just a tv program or a movie it isn’t real. We all played cowboys & indians in the sandhills that had small mesa-type hills & lupin foliage as youngsters (I liked being an indian) & when we got shot we had to lie still for 5 minutes. Then get up again & carry on. Grew out of it eventually. Do kids still do that these days? I expect probably not, but man there are some vicious video games and movies still around.

          • Kimbo

             /  27th April 2019

            No, to clarify: I wouldn’t have had an issue as such if my friend was charged, and after I advised him of the Chief Censor’s warning, he fully accepted the possible consequences. He’s that sort of guy, who will take complete responsibility for his actions, and not grizzle in the slightest.

            As such, he is also the sort of guy who wants to take responsibility for himself for what he believes and why he believes it, and leave out any middlemen as much as possible, including and especially mass-narrative-creators like the government and MSM. He is not a conspiracy-theorist as such, but is definitely an alternate-reality tester. Hence he watched the video and studied the 71-page manifesto. And he is also the sort of guy who will accept any consequences for that.

            So, yes, you are right. The law is the law. But the issue remains…should this law be the law?

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  27th April 2019

              Yes. The people in the video have the right to privacy and not to have perverts getting off on their terror as they are massacred.

              People can’t walk into a house where a murder’s been committed and perv at the victim. this is no different.

              It’s an outrage on the victims.

            • Kimbo

               /  27th April 2019

              this is no different.

              I salute your persistence, including in arguing what is, as a matter of taste and common morality, indisputable: Arps is a despicable human being in the eyes of most. And yes, it is an outrage to the victim that detracts from their dignity in death which their loved ones would likely especially value.

              But in strictly legal terms (and we are talking about the law here), I’m not sure your argument about the right to privacy, especially in death, holds. Neither does your analogy. The reason we likely can’t wander into another’s house when they have died is that it is trespass on the part of the one attempting to see. Hence, the chief censor hasn’t banned the coverage and document material for privacy rights violations. Instead, he has ruled it “promote(s)…and inspire(s) further murder and terrorism”.

              https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385399/christchurch-mosque-shootings-manifesto-deemed-objectionable

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  27th April 2019

        Since the classification occurs after the crime it is retrospective criminality or simply the crime of having a different judgement of what is offensive from the Chief Censor.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  27th April 2019

          I bet that he did it after the law was passed.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  27th April 2019

            It’s not the law, it’s the classification under it.

            Reply
        • Gezza

           /  27th April 2019

          I looked at his manifesto, as soon as I heard about it, trying to figure out what the hell would motivate someone to do something like that. It was a pile of self-justifying hateful paranoid shallow shite, but it was a shock to learn it didn’t matter that I didn’t know it was illegal; I was committing a crime I could be prosecuted for.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  27th April 2019

            Exactly. Banning the manifesto is just Orwellian beyond stupid.

            Reply
            • sorethumb

               /  27th April 2019

              It could also lead to X number of people downloading Tor and exploring the dark web?

            • Duker

               /  27th April 2019

              Its worked , as they banned many many previous objectionable content and diatribes. Wasnt new or that different just because it happened here its got more publicity… and more morons thought they would have a look

            • Duker

               /  27th April 2019

              Using Tor will immediately signal to police /customs etc that your computer and what you download will have special scrutiny.
              They can tell when its being used. duh.
              Young and dumb is a lethal mixture

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th April 2019

              A police state is the most lethal mixture. Generally leads to mass killings.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  27th April 2019

              What’s your definition of “worked”?

              Took me about 30 secs to find multiple sources of it. That included loading a secure browser.

          • sorethumb

             /  27th April 2019

            The white replacement theory etc is very human. Can you name non-Western countries where they do something similar to their majority ethnic group?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  27th April 2019

              All theories are human. What are you on about?

            • Gezza

               /  27th April 2019

              Pol Pot did something similar to his majority ethnic group. What are you trying to say?

            • sorethumb

               /  27th April 2019

              Most people want to maintain their identity in their own lands. Western liberal high culture is the exception as it signals status to be distant from those lower whites.

            • Duker

               /  27th April 2019

              Hasnt worked for 50,000 years as human migration has been defining feature of all cultures.

              Check on the derivation of ‘Anglo Saxon’ and how that was different to Celtic or more correctly – for England – the Roman-Celtic world.
              Im running out of ways to give names to the blended cutures of the time .

            • sorethumb

               /  27th April 2019

              Due to the relatively small numbers of immigrants since the settlement of Anglo-Saxons and others in these isles during the 5th to 7th centuries the basic population has remained remarkably homogeneous. Between 1066 and the turn of the 20th century, it is unlikely that the foreign-born proportion of the population ever exceeded 2 per cent, if that. The oft cited French Huguenots for example, numbered no more than 50,000 and are unlikely to have constituted more than 1 per cent of the population. Sharing a religion with the Protestant British they quickly assimilated and became part of the fabric of the nation.

              Up until the present century the make-up of the British population was pretty much as it had been for more than 1,000 years. A study by the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford and published in Nature (2015) reported that native Britons living in one particular area of the country are almost as closely related to other Britons living elsewhere in the country as they are to their immediate neighbours. The indications are that there is very little genetic structure differentiation within the native British population.
              https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/dr-campbell-campbell-jack-britain-not-nation-immigrants/

    • Duker

       /  27th April 2019

      ” That’s how most injustices occur and have forever. Instance the witch burnings.”

      Cough cough he pleaded guilty twice . Was that because he was first dunked in the village pond?

      Witch burnings were more a religious hysteria , both catholic and protestant than an application of the English common law.

      Im surprised you would have Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), published in 1486. in your library- its a how to guide
      ‘Its authors, Jacob Sprenger and Heinrich Kraemer, were experienced Dominican inquisitors who had burned 48 witches in one diocese alone’
      The reason most witches accused were women ( say 80%) was because they had a lower social and legal status.
      “Austria’s Zauberjäeckl trials (1675-1690) punished as witches people who were actually dangerous felons. The Magic Jacket Society prosecuted in those trials was a Baroque version of the Hell’s Angels, recruiting waifs whom it controlled through black magic, sodomy, and conjurations with mice. ”
      Showing your prowess with Magic tricks with Mice – was that the medieval version of Instagram?
      Some feminists have claimed 8 mill women were executed ( not all were burnt) and it can be called a ‘gynecide’

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  27th April 2019

        When thousands if not millions view millions of copies of a video and ten people get jailedi that justice?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  27th April 2019

          *is that justice?

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  27th April 2019

            Merely viewing at the time wasnt enough , you had to do more as Arps did

            But you are welcome to be his character witness …but you wont

            Reply
  4. sorethumb

     /  27th April 2019

    What is really being punished here is human nature. Because many New Zealanders would identify with the it (a situation they didn’t ask for and don’t like) but not the ought (BT’s final solution). The establishment maintains an institutional commitment to the idea that (as in other countries) white majorities must be post-ethnic cosmopolitans.

    Reply
  5. sorethumb

     /  27th April 2019

    WHITE GENOCIDE
    The theory of white genocide holds that a combination of low white birth rates, non-white immigration and race-mixing will lead to .the extinction of the white race in the West. Sometimes this is given a local interpretation, as with the British National Party’s Nick Griffin, who speaks of the British government committing ‘bloodless genocide’ against the ‘indigenous people’ of Britain.’ From Charlottesville to Calais, the far-right mantra You will not replace us’ bespeaks a similar philosophy, This process, argue white nationalists, is being driven by liberals and/or Jews, who have used white guilt over the Holocaust, slavery, Jim Crow and colonialism to open the doors of Western countries to mass non-white immigration and race-mixing. Minorities are permitted to have racial identity but whites are not. Only white countries have liberals who oppose the ethnic majority and welcome large-scale immigration of those from different racial backgrounds. It’s important to address the theory because simply accusing white nationalists of racism or refusing to discuss the fine points of white genocide theory can only give the impression of a cover-up and provide oxygen to these ideas. In addition, the more radical left-modernists get on race, the more people become attracted to theories of white genocide. Consider the relationship between the frequency of searches for the terms `white privilege’ and ‘white genocide’ on Google I noted earlier. White privilege is searched for more often than white genocide, but when we compare the trends on a 0-100 growth, index, mentions of the two terms largely track one another. Both series begin rising in 2012 and are now at unprecedented heights.

    WHITE TERRORISM
    These ideas may also pose a security risk. On 22nd July 2011, a 32-year-old Norwegian extremist, Anders Baring Breivik, set off a car bomb in central Oslo, killing seven people. This was followed by a ninety-minute shooting spree on a small island summer camp for supporters of the governing Labour Party. Breivik hunted down and killed at least eighty-seven children and young people, some under ten years old. In addition to an animus against Islam, the theory of white genocide played a part in Brevik’s thinking. In his court statement, he wrote: ‘Appreciating diversity does not mean that you support genocide of your own culture and people? Breivik is a rarity in Europe thus far. The number of white-nationalist terror incidents is low, both in absolute.terms and in proportion to the white majority population. In 2016, Europol reports that Islamists were responsible for 72. per cent of foiled or successful attacks in the EU, compared to 10 per cent for separatists (notably the dissident IRA), 3 per cent for leftists and anarchists and virtually none for the far right.1 On the other hand, there is evidence that white-nationalist terrorism may be rising in importance. On 16 June 2016, a British Labour MP, Jo Cox, was shot and stabbed to death by a 52-year-old mentally ill man, Thomas Mair, as he yelled: This is for Britain.’ Mair targeted Cox as a ‘passionate defender’ of the European Union and immigration, viewing her as a ‘traitor’ to white people.5 Britain’s PREVENT anti-terrorism unit reported that 25 per cent of the 4,000 cases referred to it in 2016 concerned the far right. This is much lower than the 70 per cent for Islamism, but represents a substantial share of the total.6 Meanwhile, one third of the 400 people referred to CHANNEL, the branch of PREVENT focusing on high-priority cases, were linked to the far right.’ In addition, there are some 55,000 racial and religious hate crimes reported in Britain each year — most involving verbal harassment but with a third involving violence and another 10 per cent concerning arson or criminal damage.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s