Katie Hopkins (and others) ridiculous attacks on Ardern

There were ridiculous criticisms of and attacks on Jacinda Ardern after the Christchurch mosque attacks, for what she said and what she wore in sympathy, support and solidarity with New Zealand Muslims. She (and the media) were attacked for not giving equal condemnation to an earlier attack inn a long running civil war situation in Nigeria.

This has risen to new levels of absurdity after the suicide bomb attack on hotels and Christian churches in Sri Lanka in the weekend.

One of those leading the over-reaction alt right brigade attacks is Katie Hopkins, from the UK.

There are a number of ridiculous things about that stupidity, particularly considering an unprecedented attack in your own country is quite different for a Prime Minister than an attack somewhere else in the world where there is a history of terrorism.

Ardern did quickly send condolences to Sri Lanka – Prime Minister sends condolences to Sri Lanka:

“New Zealand condemns all acts of terrorism, and our resolve has only been strengthened by the attack on our soil on the 15th of March. To see an attack in Sri Lanka while people were in churches and at hotels is devastating.

“New Zealand rejects all forms of extremism and stands for freedom of religion and the right to worship safely. Collectively we must find the will and the answers to end such violence.’’

She expressed similar sympathy and condemnation in person, this was widely reported by New Zealand media.

NZ Herald reported on Hopkins’ attack: Outspoken British columnist Katie Hopkins tries to roast Jacinda Ardern over Sri Lanka attacks

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is ignoring a swipe by a British columnist over yesterday’s attacks in Sri Lanka which have left hundreds dead.

Katie Hopkins, a columnist and former contestant in the 2007 The Apprentice TV show, has hit out at Ardern, saying she now expects her to be “dressed as the pope, ringing church bells across #NZ and praying in Latin in Parliament by noon”.

But many Kiwis have come to her defence with one replying, “whatever the Prime Minister does will be immeasurably more welcome and useful than anything you have ever said,” while another tweeted “if this dreadful event had happened in NZ … then our PM would be leading the nation through its grieving and empathising with the victims’ families.”

Hopkins sprayed her bile around the UK too.

Is Hopkins trying to dictate what Prime Ministers should say in reaction to international atrocities? I doubt that’s her intention, it looks more like she is trying to drive up intolerance and hate of Muslims, by playing a ‘poor me’ Christian card.

Hopkins hasn’t been alone in this sort of stupidity. from comments on a Kiwiblog post Christians slaughtered in Sri Lanka yesterday:

sooty:

Cindy will be covering her ears and singing,
LA, LA, LA LAA!

Engelbert Humperdink:

So, Cindy’s gonna wear a big cross to show solidarity, and post armed guards on the churches in NZ? Yeah, right.

All the world’s majority Muslim country leaders gonna speak out against this attack on Christians? Yeah, right.

Will there be indifference shown to the deceased and injured – even though they are people of color – by leftists because, after all, it’s ‘just something some people did’ and ‘it’s part and parcel of living in a big city’? Yes, there will be, as per Ilhan Omar and Sadiq Khan.

Ultima:

Obviously Christianity is the cause of of this terrorist act, Cindy should urge the Sri Lankan govt to ban Christianity and semi-Christianity.

Commenters at Kiwiblog and Whale Oil childishly call Ardern Cindy because (I think) she said she didn’t like being called that.

Luke Piewalker:

Of course we will see a tearful handwringing Ardern holding a cross … nah didn’t think so

vand:

Will this be said?
The Sri Lankan Prime Minister told Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern the best help she could provide in the wake of the Sri lanka attacks would be sympathy and love for Christian communities.

burt:

Christian prayers on national radio it will be then with the platitudes of ‘They are us’.

I posted Ardern’s statement to show that she had condemned the attacks, and that was downticked by 22 people (as of now).

Rachael Memberry responded:

i don’t agree, we have had CHCH shoved in our face for the last month, since Jacinda has so much political capital, especially now that she hasn’t expended any for the CGT she, as the leader that we are told that she is, should be contacting members of the Muslim community to decry terrorist attacks, not just when they are the victims of them but when they are the perpetrators also.

The Muslim community in New Zealand are not the perpetrators.

Engelbert Humperdink:

As a globalist shouldn’t she be expecting the practice of what she preaches locally to take place everywhere? Shouldn’t she now be calling for the suppression of a group of brown supremacists, and the banning of their manifesto, their Koran? if you think that’s absurd, I agree with you it’s a reach, but is not absurd. Absurd is what she did; absurd is where she set the bar. Of course all of her apologists don’t expected to be judged by the standards she set. That’s why she has to keep getting tongue-bathed by the New Zealand media (one example: recent social media resurrections, which I suppose is fitting for Easter time) to kKeep her popularity high enough / stay in office.

burt:

Are there different degrees of concern with regard to mass murder?

Obviously there are differences depending on what occurred and where it occurred. I’m fairly sure that burt and and others at Kiwiblog don’t show equal concern for all attacks around the world – they tend to ignore other attacks on Muslims.

It was worse at Whale Oil, with Hopkins tweet put up as a post (by the gutlessly anonymous ‘Whaleoil staff’) – Tweet of the day. This fed some predictable responses.

ibdkiwi:

But wait…hold the presses, this is breaking news: someone just told me the Prime Minister is donating $300M to Sri-Lanka to buy-back all the bombs, well; not all of them, just the assault-bombs, ‘so this sort of thing can never happen again’. Can anyone confirm if this story is true?

Smoke & Mirrors:

Has she mentioned ‘Christians’ yet?

BlokeinAuckland:

Nope. Or that it was muslims as perpetrators.

If Only:

Excellent comment but Katie forgets its still an Easter Holiday in NZ and our PM never works during the holidays – she is a member of a union after all. Perhaps we shall see her play dress up and ring bells tomorrow.

Nutta:

To be fair, JA put out comment condemning the terrorist act yesterday, not long after the event. No, I’m not even remotely a cheerleader.

Dave:

Not really, more likely her office put out a Press Release yesterday

I saw Ardern personally condemning the attacks on TV news. A lot of this is petty uninformed dissing. And it went on.

At least ‘SB’ put her pseudonym initials to another post feeding a string of more nonsense – Facebook comment of the day. The most recent comment:

Surprisingly, Jacinda hasn’t offered to pay for all the funeral expenses!

Sadly this is the stupid level of much of the discussion on terrorist atrocities, deliberately stoked by Katie Hopkins.

Helen Kelly blamed Muldoonism for Trades Hall killing

Interviews of Helen Kelly in the year before she died are being edited into a movie, due out later this year.

A preview of part of that from Newshub – Revealed: Helen Kelly blamed fatal bomb attack on Sir Robert Muldoon

A new film about the late union leader Helen Kelly reveals she blamed a fatal bomb attack on anti-union hysteria whipped up by former Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon.

Ms Kelly said the frenzy led the suitcase bombing left in the building, its explosion killing caretaker Ernie Abbott.

In it, she recalls how she knew Mr Abbott well – her father Pat Kelly worked in the hall with him.

“He was just a lovely guy who lived in the hall, did his job, was a union person as well, had a little dog which everybody loved that got injured in the bombing, Patch.”

The movie is based on a series of interviews with the union leader in the year before she died – including one about the 1984 Trades Hall bombing.

There is a scene on the bomb attack, based on interview footage released to Newshub, in which Helen Kelly clearly blames it on the environment created by Muldoon, known as ‘Muldoonism’.

“Just this absolute sort of anti-Communist, anti-socialist, anti-reds under the bed hysteria which was really designed to shut down trade unions and discredit them,” she said.

“It was run by Muldoon – and it was vicious, and people were being forced to be sort of scared of trade unions and to see them as a threat,” she said.

“And it got worse and worse, and it was this sort of war of words at that stage – and then suddenly, someone put a bomb in the Trades Hall.”

It’s quite possible that intolerance and hate whipped up for political purposes at least contributed to the murder of Abbott. This was as bad as the Rainbow Warrior bombing, whether killing someone was the aim or not.

The deliberate division and attack methods of Donald Trump could also contribute to something terrible in the US happening, given the number and type of arms readily available there.

Looking back: Trades Hall bombing, 1984

Trades Hall bombing, 1984

This police poster calls for information on the Trades Hall bombing, at Vivian Street, Wellington, on 27 March 1984. A bomb left in a suitcase killed Ernie Abbott, a unionist and caretaker of the hall. At the time of the bombing Trades Hall was the headquarters of a number of trade unions. The attack came after a period of heightened industrial tensions, during which Prime Minister Robert Muldoon made frequent verbal attacks on the union movement. The bombing remains an unsolved crime, but it appears to have been the action of an isolated individual with a hatred of unions.

Courtesy of New Zealand Police – Nga Pirihimana O Aotearoa

 

Oh Standard…

The (apparently) terrorist bombing in Manchester was a terrible thing.

Nowhere near as bad but still eye-rollingly stupid was some of the suggestions of political blame at The Standard in comments on the post Oh Manchester …

Millsy:

Starting to wonder if this was a false flag bombing. Now May can looking all defiant and prime ministerial and Corbyn can be portrayed as soft and weak on security.

Draco T Bastard:

That is the scary thought about this.

The Fairy Godmother:

Is it just a coincidence that the media were misrepresenting Jeremy Corban as supporting the IRA yesterday and now this happens. Hopefully it was.

Anne:

The timing of this event – given that Labour and Corbyn appear to have suddenly started to surge in the polls – caused me to contemplate the same possibility as The Fairy Godmother. At this point in time it would seem implausible, but it’s not a crime to entertain such a scenario.

Anne is right in a way about one thing. Stupidity isn’t a crime. And suggesting that an ISIS attack was a deliberate plot by a political party in an election campaign is very stupid.

In Vino:

Well said, Anne.
Some people are over-eagerly picking upon what they want to see as over-reactions. Their hidden agenda becomes overt.

Anne:

Thanks In Vino. I don’t think anyone here is seriously contemplating a Tory plot in order to gain more votes. But the possibility of some wrong headed right wing individuals – or an individual – trying to use the imminent election as a focal point for causing major upheavals in the name of some lunatic agenda is not an uncommon eventuality these days.

But that’s a long way from carrying out a terrorist bombing that murders many innocent people.

And it’s pathetic to target “some wrong headed right wing individuals”, considering the attempts by people and organisations like Hager, Dotcom and Wikileaks to try to cause (non-violent) major political  upheavals.

There was more, but there were also challenges to these assertions. The discussions even go Godwin:

Psycho Milt: How good at would do you have to be to notice how unlikely a false flag attack is in this case? Some people never met a conspiracy theory they didn’t like.

In Vino: I bet that is what they said straight after Hitler’s team burnt the Reichstag.

Psycho Milt: Hilarious you should call on the Reichstag fire as evidence.

In Vino: No – the false flag accusation would have been catered for in advance and laughed to scorn. You always seem ill-disposed to false flag suggestions…

Fortunately we haven’t seen terrorism in New Zealand like that impacting on various parts of Europe over the last few years.

But we do have political hate, and one of the symptoms of that are the ridiculous suggestions at The Standard.

A far more appropriate final comment (to date) at The Standard from Adam:

“Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.”

Martin Luther King 1958.

And just as importantly,

“If we do not learn to live together as friends, we will die apart as fools.”

Martin Luther King 1963.

 

Bombing balls up during ‘ceasefire’

Two questions – why did the US bomb Syrian troops, and why were they bombing at all during a ceasefire?

Bombing and killing the the wrong people (62 reported to be dead) may have been a genuine mistake, shit happens during wars.

But why where they bombing at all when there was supposed to be a ceasefire?

These questions have been asked by Russia and have precipitated an emergency meeting at the UN’s Security Council.

RNZ: Emergency UN Security Council meeting

On Sunday (NZ time) Russia called an emergency meeting of the Security Council, with New Zealand’s UN Ambassador Gerard van Bohemen in the chair, after the United States admitted carrying out air strikes believed to have killed Syrian government soldiers.

British-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported at least 80 government soldiers died in the attack.

The attack had paved the way for Islamic State fighters to overrun the position near Deir al-Zor airport, the group said.

Other reports say at least 62 Syrian troops fighting Islamic State were killed.

The US military said it believed it was bombing Islamic State jihadists, but stopped as soon as Russian officials said it was hitting the Syrian military.

This was in the middle of a seven day ceasefire agreed between the US and Russia, that took effect from last Tuesday.

According to reports Murray McCully received about the Security Council meeting…

…there were “bitter exchanges” between Russia and the US in particular, although there were many other countries with strong views on the conflict.

The mess in the Middle East, currently centred on Syria, is bad enough. When the world’s biggest military and political powers are actively involved the stakes become more serious. Especially when they stuff up and bomb the wrong targets.

Jeffrey Feltman, UN Under-Secretary for Political Affairs, said there was no obvious solution to the Syrian conflict, and welcomed the focus that will be brought to it this week.

And when there is “no obvious solution” it is of major international concern due to flow on effects outside the Middle East.

“There is no bigger crisis, in terms of peace and security on the international scene than the Syrian crisis, and the repercussions are global, when you look at the migration in Europe, you look at the potential return of foreign terrorist fighters from the Syria battlefield.

“This is a truly global peace and security issue.”

Mr Feltman said the UN was taking a three-pronged approach to the Syrian crisis; trying to reduce the violence, increase the humanitarian access and trying to get to a viable political process that can lead to a political transition in Syria.

John Key is heading to New York into the middle of the United Nations impotence. Murray McCully is already there (Key may have arrived by now).

Before leaving for New York, Mr Key said the Security Council meeting on Syria would be one of New Zealand’s “biggest moments”.

“This is a time when New Zealand can use the presidency, which only happens twice in the time you’re actually on the council and we’re only on the council every 20 or 30 years, so it’s the one time to use that presidency to direct the world’s leaders, if you like, on the most pressing issue we face.”

While it would be nice if New Zealand can inject something effective into the Security Council crisis it’s hard to see a miracle happening.

Mr McCully said the events of the weekend just underlined the need for the Security Council to face up to major conflicts and find a long term solution.

(I think a New Zealand term is appropriate here on the chances of that).

Yeah, right.

With bombs dropping during a ceasefire I don’t like anyone’s chances of stopping all the death and destruction.

Corbyn opposes Syrian air strikes

This isn’t really a big surprise, but the BBC reports that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn opposes proposals for UK airstrikes in Syria and prefers a “comprehensive negoriated political settlement”.

How that could be started let alone achieved is not explained.

cuwvknewuaa-avf

BBC: Jeremy Corbyn ‘cannot support air strikes’

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has written to his MPs to say he cannot support the prime minister’s proposals for air strikes against IS targets in Syria.

But Mr Corbyn’s intervention puts him on a collision course with his shadow cabinet, half of whom are thought to support action.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hillary Benn told BBC News he found the case for strikes “compelling”.

David Cameron is trying to convince MPs action would make Britain’s “safer”.

He will hold a Commons vote if he thinks he can win it, possibly as early as next week.

I’m not a fan of bombing and killing generally, but there seems little option but to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq, to reduce their indiscriminate and barbaric killings.

Terrorist bombing suggested in reaction to Campbell Live

There’s been a lot of bizarre claims about the politics involved in the suggested review of Campbell Live. ‘Sanctuary’ is one of the more extreme. At Dim-Post (commenting on Leadership! which only talks about the commercial aspects):

I guess if John key’s cronies get to shut down all critical debate we’ll just have to start stocking up on fertilizer and diesel and try to find new ways of informing them.

That seems to be a clear suggestion of some sort of Oklahoma City bombing.

rayinnz responded:

Is this the same Sanctuary who while busily calling for a real Public Broadcasting Service was also demanding utu against journalists who he felt didn’t follow his party line
Now its armed revolution.

Sanctuary:

No one is advocating armed revolution, just suggesting the usual alternative methods of gaining the attention of politicians when all the democratic ones are taken away.

In “the usual alternative methods” he was fairly clearly advocating bombing. Reviewing Campbell Live, and shutting it down if that happens, has nothing to do with taking away democratic methods.

That isn’t the only p[lace Sanctuary has been commenting on it. At The Standard:

Public broadcasting – by which I mean not just TVNZ but all the free to air broadcasters – are almost at the logical conclusion of the free market experiment.

TV3 are obliged by the conditions of their license to offer news and current affairs. I’d revoke their licence and give it to Maori TV, along with their frequency.

I don’t know how much they are ‘obliged’ to offer news and current affairs but they are not required to continue poorly supported shows.

And:

it is actually quite scary that the last bastion of prime time current affairs can be shut down by frankly pro-government cronies with barely a murmur. In the end, if democrracy proves to “to risky” for John Key, will it go the same way as Campbell live, accompanied by a cackle of soothing and supportive noises from Hoskings, Henry, Larry Williams and David Farrar?

That was on a post that says:

So there we have it – Key’s loyal and personal friend is out to shut down the last investigative journalism left on TV. Just a bit too inconvenient for an arrogant and incompetent government in its third-term death spiral I guess.

This is over the top drivel, but not as bad as suggesting something like this:

Disgraceful from Sanctuary, but that’s just an extreme example of a lot of nonsense being spouted over something that hasn’t even happened.