Jacinda Ardern ‘opinion’ in NY Times

An opinion piece from Jacinda Ardern has been published in the New York Times. This isn’t available from the official Beehive news release website, so I presume it’s intended as a message to the world rather than to the people of New Zealand.

Her aim (as stated) is not as some people claim, to shut down free speech or to stop critics from speaking. There is absolutely no evidence as some claim that Ardern is fronting some sort of UN conspiracy to take over the world and subjugate the world population.

She says:

Our aim may not be simple, but it is clearly focused: to end terrorist and violent extremist content online. This can succeed only if we collaborate.

The vast majority of us, nearly all of us, are not terrorists or violent extremists, so we hopefully have little to fear from what she is trying to achieve internationally.

A terrorist attack like the one in Christchurch could happen again unless we change. New Zealand could reform its gun laws, and we did. We can tackle racism and discrimination, which we must. We can review our security and intelligence settings, and we are. But we can’t fix the proliferation of violent content online by ourselves. We need to ensure that an attack like this never happens again in our country or anywhere else.

Of course it is up to us here in New Zealand to engage with discussions over free speech and hate speech and terrorism and extremism and attempts to promote violence online, to help ensure that social media regulations are intended for the extreme minority and shouldn’t affect the rest of us.


Social media needs reform. No one should be able to broadcast mass murder.

By Jacinda Ardern
Ms. Ardern is the prime minister of New Zealand.

At 1:40 p.m. on Friday, March 15, a gunman entered a mosque in the city of Christchurch and shot dead 41 people as they worshiped.

He then drove for six minutes to another mosque where, at 1:52 p.m., he entered and took the lives of another seven worshipers in just three minutes. Three more people died of their injuries after the attack.

For New Zealand this was an unprecedented act of terror. It shattered our small country on what was otherwise an ordinary Friday afternoon. I was on my way to visit a new school, people were preparing for the weekend, and Kiwi Muslims were answering their call to prayer. Fifty men, women and children were killed that day. Thirty-nine others were injured; one died in the hospital weeks later, and some will never recover.

This attack was part of a horrifying new trend that seems to be spreading around the world: It was designed to be broadcast on the internet.

The entire event was live-streamed — for 16 minutes and 55 seconds — by the terrorist on social media. Original footage of the live stream was viewed some 4,000 times before being removed from Facebook. Within the first 24 hours, 1.5 million copies of the video had been taken down from the platform. There was one upload per second to YouTube in the first 24 hours.

The scale of this horrific video’s reach was staggering. Many people report seeing it autoplay on their social media feeds and not realizing what it was — after all, how could something so heinous be so available? I use and manage my social media just like anyone else. I know the reach of this video was vast, because I too inadvertently saw it.

We can quantify the reach of this act of terror online, but we cannot quantify its impact. What we do know is that in the first week and a half after the attack, 8,000 people who saw it called mental health support lines here in New Zealand.

My job in the immediate aftermath was to ensure the safety of all New Zealanders and to provide whatever assistance and comfort I could to those affected. The world grieved with us. The outpouring of sorrow and support from New Zealanders and from around the globe was immense. But we didn’t just want grief; we wanted action.

Our first move was to pass a law banning the military-style semiautomatic guns the terrorist used. That was the tangible weapon.

But the terrorist’s other weapon was live-streaming the attack on social media to spread his hateful vision and inspire fear. He wanted his chilling beliefs and actions to attract attention, and he chose social media as his tool.

We need to address this, too, to ensure that a terrorist attack like this never happens anywhere else. That is why I am leading, with President Emmanuel Macron of France, a gathering in Paris on Wednesday not just for politicians and heads of state but also the leaders of technology companies. We may have our differences, but none of us wants to see digital platforms used for terrorism.

Our aim may not be simple, but it is clearly focused: to end terrorist and violent extremist content online. This can succeed only if we collaborate.

Numerous world leaders have committed to going to Paris, and the tech industry says it is open to working more closely with us on this issue — and I hope they do. This is not about undermining or limiting freedom of speech. It is about these companies and how they operate.

I use Facebook, Instagram and occasionally Twitter. There’s no denying the power they have and the value they can provide. I’ll never forget a few days after the March 15 attack a group of high school students telling me how they had used social media to organize and gather in a public park in Christchurch to support their school friends who had been affected by the massacre.

Social media connects people. And so we must ensure that in our attempts to prevent harm that we do not compromise the integral pillar of society that is freedom of expression.

But that right does not include the freedom to broadcast mass murder.

And so, New Zealand will present a call to action in the name of Christchurch, asking both nations and private corporations to make changes to prevent the posting of terrorist content online, to ensure its efficient and fast removal and to prevent the use of live-streaming as a tool for broadcasting terrorist attacks. We also hope to see more investment in research into technology that can help address these issues.

The Christchurch call to action will build on work already being undertaken around the world by other international organizations. It will be a voluntary framework that commits signatories to counter the drivers of terrorism and put in place specific measures to prevent the uploading of terrorist content.

A terrorist attack like the one in Christchurch could happen again unless we change. New Zealand could reform its gun laws, and we did. We can tackle racism and discrimination, which we must. We can review our security and intelligence settings, and we are. But we can’t fix the proliferation of violent content online by ourselves. We need to ensure that an attack like this never happens again in our country or anywhere else.

 

 

Police name London terrorists

From Missy:


Police have named two of the three terrorists who were part of Saturday night’s attack, including one that is being reported as being the Ring Leader.

The Telegraph: Khuram Butt and Rachid Redouane named as London Bridge terrorists – everything we know about them

The ringleader of the London Bridge terror attack who was photographed on the ground with canisters strapped to his body was today named by police as Khuram Butt

Butt, 27, of Barking, East London, is believed to have led the trio of terrorists who ploughed into pedestrians using a hired van, before stabbing revellers in pubs and bars on Saturday night.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said Butt was known to police and MI5 but said there had been no evidence of “attack planning” and he had been deemed as a ‘low priority.’

A second man Rachid Redouane, 30, also from Barking was named by police as one of the other two attackers.  Redouane was unknown to police.  The third man is not a UK citizen.

Today it emerged that Butt had appeared in the Channel 4 documentary The Jihadis Next Door, which warned of the rise of extreme Islam in London.

Khuram Butt is another one that was known to police and had been reported to police, however, police say that whilst he was known there was no evidence of attack planning.

There are a lot of people saying that it is a failure of security services and police, but I think this case shows the complexity and difficulty there is in dealing with extremism.

If someone is reported the police can only watch them unless there is evidence that they have done – or are planning – something illegal. We can’t go around arresting people for what they think or believe. A lot of people believe things that would be considered radical extremism of some form or another, we see it every day on blogs and twitter, but we can’t round them all up based on what they believe – and I wouldn’t want to live in a society that does.

This leads me to another problem with these people, they aren’t using large networks, there are often no signs, or indications, of attack planning – all they need is a knife and a vehicle. This creates challenges for the security services that they are obviously still working through on how to manage – with tragic consequences.

Behind all of this the Security Services and police are very much constrained to a degree by legislation, especially in the EU which is very pro privacy and balks at a lot of state surveillance, and has strong beliefs in Human Rights regardless. I am not saying this is right or wrong, just the way it is.

The UK have been hamstrung with regards to dealing with known hate preachers and members of ISIS through the European Human Rights legislation, and the ECJ. There have been a number that they have been trying to deport – including ring leaders of the Rochdale sex abuse ring – but these people appeal to the European Courts and have their case upheld, meaning the UK can’t do anything about it.

This is a point many apologists for Islamic Extremism either don’t understand – or don’t want to understand. It is our liberal views on the world, our importance on Human Rights and Privacy, and our laws on racism and discrimination that they use against us for their own benefit allowing themselves to stay in the country.

And this makes me very angry, because these are the same people that are today slamming the Government for police cuts and not doing enough to stop terrorism, when it is THEIR liberal beliefs and opposition to the measures the Government might want to bring in that has contributed to the situation as much.

 

 

Muslim ban askew

c3vuf7vukaahub6

Slater – more despicable

I didn’t plan for today to focus on Whale Oil but the campaign there against ‘Islam’ reached new depths in their third post of the day (there has since been a fourth).

In ISLAMIC COUNCIL SAYS THERE ARE NO ISRAELI VICTIMS OF TERRORISM Slater disingenuously misrepresents what the Islamic Council of New Zealand have said in a press release that condemns the Paris attacks and condemns religious related violence, and tries to turn it into an anti-Israel attack.

But the worst is his use of a photo of a dagger weilding (apparently) Muslim cleric juxtaposed with a dishonest headline and “this press release from the Islamic Council of NZ”.

WOIslamicCouncil

That’s dirty and inciteful, especially alongside Whale Oil’s numerous other anti-Islamic posts (four so far today, the latest on refugees which states “The only strong stance is commit to destroying these scumbags”).

And that’s not what the Islamic Council said at all.

What advertiser or politician would want to be associated with anything like this?

I haven’t Slater support anti-terrorist protests nor condemn terrorist attacks like this:

Afghans march against terrorism and for a political system to secure 

The Afghan capital Kabul witnessed a historic protest on Wednesday when tens of thousands of people marched to the presidential palace. It was the largest demonstration in Afghanistan’s modern history. Demonstrators carried the coffins and photos of seven innocent people – including two women and a nine-year-old girl – whose bodies were found on Saturday.

Afghan officials reportedly said Islamic State (IS) had kidnapped these ethnic Hazara people several months ago and held them in the Arghandab district of southern Zabul province. While serious questions remain about the circumstances of the kidnapping and killings, the captives had been brutally beheaded just days ago. Their bodies were sent to their families in the Jaghori district of Ghazni province.

Of course it’s not necessary or possible to condemn all instances of terrorism when condeming specific attacks, and it’s stupid to demand it or use it as an excuse to do the dirty on someone doing the condemning.

The French attacks and gun toting Slaterites

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris Cameron Slater suggests that an armed population would be the best way to prevent terrorism.

HOW GUN CONTROL HELPED THE FRENCH AVOID A MASSACRE…OH WAIT

We hear often, mainly from the left-wing how gun control will stop massacres. That removing guns from society will prevent gun crime.

I don’t hear this. I think Slater made that up.

Fewer guns in society can reduce gun crime and shooting accidents, but that’s unrelated to terrorist massacres.

It is all rubbish of course and we saw evidence of that the other day from Paris.

Criminals ignore laws, and laws create business opportunities for those criminals. Terrorists don’t care about gun control laws, for them it just makes killing large amounts of people easier if they are disarmed by their own governments.

The French government disarmed their population and now they wonder why they are targets.

They are targets because the French armed forces are active in Syria fighting against ISIS. Guns beget armed responses.

We are in a war with Islam. They want to destroy our civilisation and replace it with theirs. We need to fight, hard.

So Europe should arm their populations to prevent terrorist attacks? Slater seems to want to allow, even encourage the people to arm themselves and wipe out ‘Islam’.

I shudder to think what it would be like if people like him were allowed to roam the streets of New Zealand, armed to the teeth,  fighting hard in our defence.

Big talk from Slater. Big stupidity. And not just from him, the Slater tag team are out in force this morning. Spanish Bride posted in Face of the Day:

Back in May today’s face of the day Dame Susan ‘Dhimmi’  Devoy was backing Winston Peter’s call to increase our refugee quota.

Do you know what else we lag behind the rest of the world in Susan? Terrorism.There is a clear correlation between increased Muslim immigration and terrorism in a western country. It doesn’t matter how they got there, what matters is the dangerous ideology and belief system that they bring with them.

I suggest two words of the day for Whale OIl, correlation and causation.

After every single Muslim terrorist attack they have gone out of their way to inform us that it was linked to Islam.They have told us that the organisation behind the attacks is Islamic yet despite this Ms Devoy the other day made a statement as ludicrous as stating that the sky is green.

Ms Devoy might not like the truth but that does not give her the right to tell such bald-faced lies. Obviously she does not want the innocent Muslim community to suffer for what the guilty Muslim community have done but that is no excuse for ignoring the obvious. It is like saying that male on female rape has nothing to do with men. Yes, not all men rape but obviously some do. The terrorists are Muslim and the ideology that they follow is Islam. It may be an unpalatable truth and the Muslim community may be keen to distance themselves from it, much like I would want to distance myself from a family member that killed someone, but that does not change the facts.

That’s a garbled message but the Slaters seem to want to wipe out Islam because of extremist Muslim terrorists. Should women of the world be allowed to arm themselves to wipe out men to eliminate rape?

Members of the Muslim community, the Muslim ‘family’ in France did massacre French civilians and they did do it in the name of Allah. Stop sugar-coating the unpleasant truth Susan. You are fooling nobody.

Blaming “the Muslim ‘family’ in France” for the Paris massacres.

Somehow though I suspect that the real problem is inside your department. Are you leading the department Susan or is the department leading you? Are they feeding you the politically correct lines? Are they telling you what to say? I bet they justify it with the rationale that the lie will protect the local Muslim community. That rationale is the same one currently being used by Angela Merkel to justify suppressing the truth about refugee violence and rape against other refugees and the local German community. Do you really want to follow in her footsteps? I assure you that history will not remember Ms Merkel with kindness.

It’s hard to know what she’s actually trying to say there. This is what Devoy said that Spanish Bride is speaking so streongly against:

New Zealand’s Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy said terrorism is not religious based and urged Kiwis to stand with the Muslim community.

“Hate starts small but so, too, does hope,” Dame Susan said.

“Terrorism has no religion and neither does humanity: we urge Kiwis to stand together in humanity.”

The concepts of religion and terrorism seemed to be diametrically opposed to me. Some terrorists use religion as an excuse to kill, but religion isn’t the cause. Misuse of religion is one of a number of factors.

Slater’s armed with keyboards are relatively harmless. let’s leave it at that. I think gun toting Slateritess roaming the streets are unlikely to make them safer.

Innocent until proven a risk should be an inalienable Kiwi principle

It was inevitable that the French killers have been killed. They lived by the gun, died by the gun. A fair enough outcome.

Sad that more innocent people have been killed.

What does this mean for New Zealand? There’s far less risk of anything like this happening here but it’s not zero risk. There should be and will be much discussion about surveillance for protection versus intrusion on privacy.

There will also be ongoing discussion on immigration. There will also be ongoing discussion on immigration. There have been a number of calls to stop immigration of other cultures and religions, and some have even suggested deportation of all Muslims.

It’s worth noting that the Kouachi brothers were born in France.

So should anyone whose parents weren’t born in New Zealand be kicked out of the country just in case there’s a nutter amongst them?

100% protection against terrorism is impossible.

Terrorists want to create mayhem and provoke division. The best way to combat that is to remain calm and cautious, and to not change how we do things in New Zealand as a knee jerk reaction to events in France.

Reacting to the hate and intolerance of terrorists with hate and intolerance allows them to destroy our special way of life.

We need to hold New Zealand values as very precious – our tolerance of different cultures and religions with a relative absence of persecution based on differences.

Innocent until proven a risk should be an unalienable Kiwi principle.

Horrifying attack in France

Tensions have risen a few more notches in already highly charged Europe after the attack and murders in France.

Paris terror attack: 12 killed at satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo

Three masked gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar!” have stormed the Paris offices of a satirical newspaper, killing 12 people, including its editor, before escaping in a car. It was France’s deadliest post-war terrorist attack.

Security forces were hunting for the gunmen who spoke flawless, unaccented French in the military-style noon-time (NZT early Thursday) attack on the weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo, located near the Bastille monument. The publication’s caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed have frequently drawn condemnation from Muslims.

President Francois Hollande called the slayings “a terrorist attack without a doubt,” and said several other attacks have been thwarted in France in recent weeks.

Very sad and worrying, not just for those who are victims or potential victims of Muslim extremists but also for the vast majority of Muslims in Europe who are innocent but will no doubt be impacted.

There is a potential risk in New Zealand of something similar but the best way of combatting this is to continue our tolerance of different races and religions without inflaming things here.

What Prosser should have addressed – airport profiling

“One aspect of Prosser’s rambling polemic touched on something of genuine importance.” Airport profiling.

Richard Prosser caused an uproar when he bashed all Muslims with his keyboard in an Investigate column. When this surfaced in blogs and mainstream media this caused a furore. Prosser began as unrepentant, but quickly changed his stance, making an “unreserved” apology – of sorts. See Prosser: ‘I’m apologising unreservedly’ – see also Retreat from Wogistan.

Prosser also suggested what his approach should have been.

Mr Prosser said rather than calling for young Muslim men to be banned from travelling by air, he should have called for an investigation into the merits of “target profiling”.

A column in D Scene by Associate Law Professor Colin Gavaghan has picked up on this.

Should we use security profiling at airports?

One aspect of Prosser’s rambling polemic touched on something of genuine importance. The controversial suggestion terror suspects should be identified based on their appearance is being taken seriously in some quarters.

US philospher and neuroscientest Sam Harris has argued it makes sense to target airport security efforts at youngish Muslim males, as they are the group almost exclusively resonsible for suicide agttacks on aircraft.

Since there us no test that can be administered to detect “Muslimness”, profiling will inevitably boil down to singling out people who “look Muslim”. Read: of middle eastern or south Asian appearance.

Leaving aside the social, ethical and legal problems of using ethnicity as a proxy for dangerousness, it doesn’t take a criminal mastermind of Moriarty proportions to see how this system might be gamed.

As security expert Bruce Schneier has warned, it wouldn’t be smart to rely on a system that can be fooled by a bottle of hair dye.

Some more recent developments eschew racial profiling, using putatively more subtle and accurate markers.

The Facial Actions Coding System works by monitoring all the little muscle movements. Other sorts of behavioural profiling focus on how someone walks and how much they are sweating.

All of which is intended to help security people see into people’s minds. Are they filled with righteous rage, or just slightly irritated by the delayed flight?

How far should we go towards a predictive model of law enforcement?

If it works, the safety benefits could be massive – not only in preventing terrorist atrocities, but maybe also spree killings like Sandy Hook.

It’s one thing, though, if the test just results in someone being subject to a minor inconvenience, like a brief search.

It’s quite another if “false positives” result in completely innocent people being shot dead by jumpy police.

In the middle we have a whole range of possibile inconveniences and restrictions to which people could be subject, based on predictions of what they might do.

For those who don’t resemble the profile of a “typical” terrorist, all this may seem like a price worth paying for greater security. But it won’t be them paying the priced.

Of course this column has attracted minimal attention after the raising of the issue by Prosser. A reasoned and reasonable approach doesn’t make the news, even though it addresses the important issues.