Whale Oil inciting anti-Christian/anti-Muslim anger

Whale Oil posts continue to try to drive up anger and intolerance towards Muslims in New Zealand, while trying to claim that Christians are the victims of an unfair lack of sympathy.

After the Christchurch mosque attacks here was an effort made by some, including here on Your NZ, to attack politicians (mainly Jacinda Ardern) and media for what was claimed to be a disparity between reacting to and reporting of one of the only and by far the worst terrorist attacks in new Zealand, compared to one f many attacks in Nigeria in a long running internal war.

From a New Zealand there was little comparison between the two, but that didn’t stop attempts to equate them and to dump on anyone who hadn’t reported them in a similar manner.

Soon after the bombings in Sri Lanka this meme was launched as if it was prepared for. One of the first to attack was nasty UK alt-right activist Katie Hopkins, who slammed Jacinda Ardern for responding differently to an attack in a foreign country to one in the country she is Prime Minister of.

This was supported repeated in social media here. It’s as if they are trying to be some sort of speech police, condemning anyone who doesn’t word their condemnations to their satisfaction. But it also looks like an attempt to paint ‘Christians’ as the victims, and to drive up anger against Islam and by association Muslims.

David Farrar ridiculed the Hopkins effect at Kiwiblog: Defending Jacinda from Katie Hopkins

Jacinda Ardern is not the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka. She is the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Why on earth would she do anything in response to an attack in another country, except the normal expressions of sympathy?

I still don’t get how people get so worked up over a display of empathy to the Muslim community in New Zealand. It was genuine and a great idea.

The sensible comparison is would she have done the same if another religious minority was slaughtered in New Zealand, and I am sure the answer would be yes. If 50 Jews had been killed while praying at a synagogue in New Zealand, then Ardern would probably have worn a kippah or yarmulke as a sign of respect and empathy.

There’s so much legitimate stuff to criticise Ardern on, that it drives me crazy that people get worked up on this.

Of course being attacked by Katie Hopkins is akin to being savaged by Chloe of Wainuiomata.

That’s an unfair comparison, more Kiwis will have heard of Chloe.

But as has become the norm at Kiwiblog, comments ran in the other direction, likke this well upticked comment from Simonp:

I think the point is that no Muslim leader would show empathy for any Christian attack in the same way and that Jacinda did. Equally, Jacinda wishes the Muslim community happy Ramadan but fails to wish the New Zealand happy Easter. It comes across as fear and pandering and could embolden extremists. Hopkins was challenging Jacinda to make an equally bold statement in support of Christianity.

Not really. Hopkins was attacking Ardern for showing sympathy and empathy for Muslims in New Zealand, but not naming Christians as victims in Sri Lanka in her first brief official response.  Ardern referred to “bombings there on Easter Sunday”, a fairly obvious Christian reference. She also referred to “an attack in Sri Lanka while people were in churches and at hotels”, which seems sensible given the hotel attacks were not obviously targeting one religion over any others.


Virtue signalling is virtue signalling and is no sign of genuine grief. It is merely a form of superfluous and superficial egotism. There may indeed be genuine sympathy felt beneath the outward ‘look- at -me’ show, and sincere grief felt – that is for no-one to judge- but there is never a need to wave a flag, or don a hijab in this instance, to let the world know just how sincere and deep your feelings are. Such people deserve mockery.

‘Virue signalling’ is one of those pejoratives that I have difficulty knowing what people actually mean – or if they know what it means. Is Hopkins virtue signalling? She certainly promotes the virtues of Christians and slams the virtues of Muslims, as do a number of commenters at Kiwiblog (some argued against).

While Kiwiblog simmers and seethes beneath the surface in comments threads, Whale Oil also drives a religious divide in posts.

Whale Oil has championed Hopkins for years. They (they now being under the management, guidance  and apparent control of Juana Atkins)  jumped on the Hopkins bashwagon following the Sri Lanka attacks.

‘Whaleoil staff’ posted the first Hopkins tweet as Tweet of the Day on Monday, which haad some predictable responses, including this from ‘Sunshine’:

Christians all over the world are hunted at the moment not because they are Christians, but because they represent western civilisation. Ardern and her ilk want to ‘fundamentally transform’ the west, as Barry Soetoro once said.

That is laden with conspiracy theorising (actually they are not theories, they are dirty memes) – in particular, that it is a clash of civilisations with Christians as the victims.

The following day Atkins posted Things that make me go hmm under ‘SB’ (one of her pseudonyms), where she nitpicked Theresa May tweets on the Christchurch and Sri Lanka attacks, followed by another ridiculous Hopkins quote:

Why does Islam always matter more to Christian leaders?

That doesn’t even make sense to me. It prompted typical (for a tightly controlled forum like Whale Oil) responses, like this from Boondecker:

“Violence against churches and hotels… ” – what an odd thing to say/tweet in the circumstances. There appears to be a very strange but obvious disconnect when you become a political leader. No wonder they’re rated even below car and insurance salesmen in terms of trustworthiness (the mainstream media are the only crowd that’s worse).

“Violence against churches and hotels” is fairly accurate for a brief generalised tweet. ‘Churches’ is synonymous with ‘Christian’:

1. a building used for public Christian worship

And several hotels were also bombed.

Yesterday the anger meme was promoted in Growing anger over anti-Christian terror denialism

Anger is growing around the world at the blatant disparity and hypocrisy of the media and political elite in their reactions to terrorism, depending on who the victims are.

Of course no proof is provided that anger is growing anywhere. What this looks like is an attempt to grow anger in New Zealand.

Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. It shouldn’t matter who the innocent victims are: Muslims in a market in Quetta or in a mosque in Christchurch, or Christians on the streets of Rome or in churches in Sri Lanka. But, as we are seeing after the Easter carnage in Sri Lanka, it matters very much to the media-political elite who the victims are.

Christians are way down on the Victim Totem Pole.

Not at Whale Oil, where they are playing the ‘Christians are victims in a clash of civilisations’ card hard.

As per the standard narrative, no matter who is shredded by terrorists’ bombs, the real victims, as far as the media-political elite are concerned, are always Muslims.

That’s just pathetic nonsense.

But it’s dangerous nonsense. Whale Oil, with Atkins leading the charge now, is trying to drive up anger and division between Muslims and Christians.

Whale Oil has also actively promoted gun rights including the ‘right’ to own military style weapons. The blog attracts people who like firearms, and it attracts people who see Christians as victims, who see ‘Western civilisation’ under threat, and see Islam and Muslims as the threat.

As the 50 Christchurch murders showed, it only takes one person to believe this sort of persistent inflammatory claptrap to escalate things into extreme violence.

Probably all of the posts and most of the comments at Whale Oil would fall short of any hate speech laws – certainly the laws we currently have. But the sum of all the parts, the ongoing inciting posts (often multiple in a day) and the comments in support, looks like a campaign of hate and intolerance and division. It is difficult to legislate against that.

But this sort of campaign of fear mongering and hate should be called out for what it is, and should those who are responsible for it.

Sex crimes – “how many more victims are there?”

In reference to an increasiing number of complaints emerging – Cosby count now at 24 – David Farrar says “What gets me wondering is how many more victims are there?”

That’s becoming a common question with sexual assault cases.

Leader abused boys on trips

Were had pleaded guilty to 16 charges of indecent assault, doing an indecent act with a boy aged between 12 and 16 and performing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend.

The court heard how Were, 61, offended against six boys, ranging in age from seven to 17, between 1983 and continuing up until the day before he was arrested earlier this year.

Six boys came forward. That may have been all that Barry Were assaulted but research has shown that in general the majority of sexual assaults are not reported.

Judge ends suppression for sex offender

Name suppression will end on Friday for a Blenheim man found guilty on 35 charges.

The charges include rape and other sex offences.

The man, 66, who is in custody awaiting sentencing in February, intends appealing against the outcome of his trial in the High Court in Nelson.

He was found guilty last week on sex, objectionable-material and drugs charges.

The charges spanned nearly 30 years, involving nine girls aged 12 to 16, Justice John Wild said in the Court of Appeal in Wellington today.

Nine girls involved in the complaints.

Man charged with ‘grave’ sex crimes named

Oamaru man Frank Russell Walmsley, 56, has lost name suppression over 48 charges of historical sexual offending.

Walmsley is due to appear in the Timaru District Court on February 25 for a jury trial.

In his decision, Justice Collins said the allegations against Walmsley were particularly serious and the community had a right to know the identity of a person charged with grave offending against girls.

“It is in the overall interests of justice that the prosecution of Walmsley be conducted in an open and transparent manner, with the community knowing Walmsley’s identity.”

The offending is alleged to have occurred against five complainants in Oamaru between 1999 and 2011. Alternative charges have been laid for 25 of the charges. Walmsley faces charges of sexual violation by rape (10 counts), sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (19), performing an indecent act with intent to offend (five charges), performing an indecent act (eight charges), indecent assault, attempted sexual violation by rape (two charges), attempted sexual violation by unlawful connection, assaulting a female and assault with a weapon.

Five complainants. But the police seem to think that may not be all.

Oamaru police would like to hear from anyone who believes they can assist their investigation.

What seems to be apparent from these examples is that a small minority of despicable pricks are responsible for a relatively large number of sexual crimes.

It can be very traumatic for victims of sex crimes to make complaints so many choose not to go to the police. They can’t be blamed in any way for protecting themselves but unfortunately it means that recidivist offenders can keep on increasing the number of victims they violate.

In the past a relatively small number of sex offenders largely got away with widespread offending with impunity.

A positive is that some of these offenders are being brought to justice thanks to the bravery of those who are making complaints in greater numbers.

There will always be victims who understandably wish to remain silent but an increasing number are prepared to make complaints, and this means there are increasing chances that repeat offenders will be held to account. And then their multiple offending will stop.