Seconds of violence, years of prison

Cowardly attacks seem to be prominent in the news at the moment. Sometimes referred to as ‘king hits’ vicious unprovoked attacks are gutless and dangerous.

Consequences can be severe, both for the victims and for the thugs.

Some assaults result in death, many result in months or years of suffering and hardship for the victims.

So the repercussions for the attackers must be severe, whether it is a result of a few seconds of drunken stupidity or not. A drunken thug is still a thug.

Yet another example via the ODT: Jailed for 10-second assault

Ten seconds was all it took to change two lives forever.

An 18-year-old, filmed on CCTV in an unprovoked, violent assault on a man he had rendered unconscious, was sentenced yesterday to three years and nine months in jail.

Six months after the attack, the 43-year-old victim is still feeling the effects, and is nervous about going out at night, the Alexandra District Court was told.

Niko William Vernon Reid-Manuel (18), of Cromwell, appeared in court for sentencing on charges of causing grievous bodily harm to Gareth Owen Wynn on February 27 at Cromwell, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He was also charged with stealing Mr Wynn’s $15 sunglasses after the assault.

Judge Kevin Phillips said Reid-Manuel attacked the victim when the man was lying on the ground, unconscious.

The defendant had punched the victim hard on the jaw and Mr Wynn fell to the ground unconscious “in what would probably be described by a television programme as similar to a king hit”, Judge Phillips said.

Following that blow, CCTV footage showed a short period of time – 10 seconds – of “extreme violence” Reid-Manuel had inflicted on the unconscious man.

“You went out of your way to inflict serious injury. You attacked the victim’s head and attacked him when he was out cold.

“… he received several punches to his head and body; he could not offer any defence of his body whatsoever. You moved off and then came back and kicked his head. You returned and then took the sunglasses.”

The victim received fractures to his cheekbone, nose, jaw, eye socket and ribs and numerous cuts and abrasions, Judge Phillips said.

“This type of street violence, unprovoked, gratuitous type of violence, has to be strongly denounced.”

An unprovoked punch is bad enough, but continuing to assault an unconscious person is despicable.

Crown counsel Craig Power said it was a “short but extremely violent attack”.

“It’s very important to state the significant effect this had on the victim. He lost his job, has ongoing effects from broken ribs, and is extremely cautious and wary about going out at night. … he didn’t do anything to start this dispute,” Mr Power said.

The pre-sentence report said the defendant showed little remorse or empathy.

Not just gutless, also remorseless.

Counsel Russell Checketts said Reid-Manuel was a first offender.

The defendant had been in a fight before this one and “came off the worst” and was concerned the same thing would happen again, Mr Checketts said. He accepted the victim’s injuries were serious but said fortunately the victim did not require any surgery and was not permanently disabled.

Lawyers have to try something but that is a very lame defence. Trying to play down the severity if the viciousness ignores the facts.

About the only fortunate thing is that Reid-Manuel wasn’t facing manslaughter charges – fortunate for the victim.

This sort of violence must be learned somewhere. It is a major stain on New Zealand society.

Responding to violence with compassion

A very good comment at The Standard on their Nice attack thread in response to this from Psycho Milt:

Compassion isn’t an appropriate feeling for someone who’d deliberately drive a truck into a crowd of random strangers.


Actually, it’s almost certainly a very appropriate response to someone who ends up in that mindspace.

Because the absence of compassion for those who inflict pain simply puts us into the same mindspace that they were in: anger focussed at people who we no longer fully regard as human.

It’s incredibly difficult to respond to violence with compassion, few of us can really do it, but it’s something to aspire to. The alternative is to just continue the cycle of violence and injustice.


Crap on social media “fucking disgusts me”

@FrancesCook posted this on Twitter yesterday:

I didn’t know Jo Cox. But I have some thoughts on her awful, tragic death.

There is quite a bit – far too much – of disgusting, disgraceful personal attacks in social media. Mass attacks are common.

Confronting this sort of gutless behaviour is not without it’s risks, as I’ve found out. People have gone as far as attempting legal action, trying to shut down this website and threatening me with jail – someone said they wanted me jailed for 3 months ‘by Christmas’ (last year).

But that doesn’t mean confronting abusive and threatening behaviour shouldn’t be attempted. It’s critical that it is done, double. Bullies typically react badly to being ridiculed but that’s one of the best and most deserving approaches.

Because if more people don’t step up and speak up about online anger and provocation then it’s just a matter of time before some nutter sees things said online as encouragement and justification for doing very bad things. As we have seen in the US and UK this week.

Political debate should be, must be vigorous. Passion is and should remain a part of it. There are serious issues at stake.

But there are lines that should be obvious to anyone involved in politics that should not be crossed.

Partly for basic human decency.

Partly so as not to provoke and reinforce less controlled people.

And partly because talking up intolerance and evil and violence are counter-productive to sensible and effective politics.

Democracy 101 is to attract support and attract votes. Arsehole behaviour does the opposite.

Crap on social media is too often disgusting. And ironically it is often perpetrated by people who somehow believe that a million people disillusioned with politics (or never illusioned) will suddenly like their crap behaviour and start to vote their way.

Violent language wins few arguments and less respect and votes.

Some politicians and many political activists set very poor examples of acceptable behaviour, but the rest of us should rise above this, confront the crap and show that there are better and more decent ways of debating.

Atkins promoting violence and intolerance

Having just posted about female involvement in domestic violence I came across this post by Spanish Bride at Whale Oil, where she is promoting extreme intolerance and violence in the wake of the Orlando gay nightclub massacre.

This is the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that can encourage nutters like the Orlander killer to perpetrate extreme violence.

This is disgraceful from a website that promotes itself as leading alternative media in New Zealand.

Face of the day



Read what today’s face of the day Milo Yiannopoulos has to say about the Muslim terrorist massacre in Florida. Gays were targeted for death by the Muslim terrorist and Milo ( himself a gay man ) has some serious words for us all.

America has to make a choice. Does it want gay rights, women’s emancipation, and tolerance for people of all nonviolent faiths — or does it want Islam?

…So, most Muslims think I’m unacceptable. Fine. I also think their religion is unacceptable. And not just “radicals” and “extremists” — their entire, barbaric, backwards ideology. 100 million people live in Muslim countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.

We can’t go on like this. We can’t live in an America where gays fear going to night clubs, where satirists fear execution for their speech, where cartoonists consider whether their next drawing might get them killed.

Today’s killings prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need to give particular scrutiny to certain faiths. Gays, apostates, and women are tired of being abused, harassed, and murdered by followers of the “religion of peace.”

And politicians have to stop lying about the link between Islam and these horrific acts.

…The gay Establishment, run by far-left wackos, is of course part of the problem too. It constantly makes excuses for Islam instead of sticking up for the people it’s supposed to protect.

Wake up, faggots. The political Left is part of the problem.

Intentionally or not I think this encourages and promotes extreme violence as well as extreme religious intolerance, and it uses a tragedy to deliberately inflame.

New Zealand has to be much better than this.

Spanish Bride is Juana Atkins. Inflammatory speech and extreme violence and intolerance are as bad when promoted by women as it is when promoted by men.

Blind to torture, revolution required

Emerging details on the torture and death of three year old Moko Rangitoheriri’s death is damning of those who could have intervened, or at least could have tried to intervene.

And it’s damning of a culture of violence alongside a culture of turning a blind eye to violence.

Will yet another case of abuse, violence and killing finally provoke a serious standing up against these cultures?

Stacey Kirk: Many knew of Moko’s torture – now they’ll have to live with his death

OPINION: Would you call CYF on a hunch? We must all act to help our abused children – because getting outraged afterwards can’t save Moko. That’s why we are calling for a ministerial inquiry to discover how we can do better to protect our most innocent.

It was not just the two people who beat, tortured and eventually killed three-year-old Moko Rangitoheriri who knew the little boy was at risk. There were others.

Kirk highlights a big part of then ongoing problem.

This public culture of not intervening is beyond disgraceful, so here’s the list of people and organisations that we know knew something – there are likely more:

Her list:

  • The Maori Women’s Refuge social worker: she followed up the seven-year-old’s claim by ringing Shailer. Shailer lied and blamed Moko’s sister. She said she feared for Moko’s safety once he was back in the hands of his mother.
  • The refuge was aware Shailer herself had escaped from a violent relationship with Haerewa and had returned to that relationship after Haerewa was let out of prison.
  • The same social worker was there when Shailer went in to CYF to say the children were at risk of being exposed to domestic violence.
  • Shailer told CYF she wasn’t coping with Moko, 11 days before his death. CYF denies being told Moko was being hurt.
  • Shailer told a friend Moko had fallen from a woodpile, when his situation was becoming dire. The friend was concerned, but never spoke up when Shailer declined her offer to drive them to the hospital.

At no point did anyone go to see Moko.

Had they done, they’d have seen damage no seven-year-old could ever inflict.

This is far from just a  Government problem, although they have to find ways of trying to address this better.

This is a family problem, a whanau problem, a community problem, a country’s problem and a country’s shame.

The trouble is, all named in the above list had at least one small piece of the puzzle. So why did no one seek Moko’s voice? Should they have done? Should the Government go knocking on doors at the slightest hint of trouble?

It’s a difficult and complex problem.

In the 1980’s social welfare visited me because a flag was raised about one of my daughters – she had been to A & E three times in a year. Being routinely checked out didn’t worry me because the accidents were easily explained – and no action was taken.

But still, thirty years later, the system is not protecting children at risk.

These are questions that needs answers. That is why the Sunday Star-Times is calling for Tolley to step in and call a full and independent inquiry.

Another Government inquiry? Is that where change should come from?

Isn’t it time families and whanau and communities stopped leaving it to another lengthy hand wringing inquiry and took responsibility for this crisis of violence?

Sure the Government can and should help.

But a revolution in caring for children has to be a revolution of the people.

For the people. Especially for the kids.

Tony Veitch on violence

The second feature article at NZ Herald in a series on addressing family silence features Tony Veitch, who became notorious for a violent attack on his then partner ten years ago.

Veitch has fronted up saying that it was a one-off grave misjudgment that  impacted on many people’s lives.

As deplorable as what Veitch did I think he is doing the right thing speaking up about it, acknowledging his mistake, makes no excuse, and promises that he has changed and will never be ‘that person’ again.

We may all be just one brain explosion away from being ‘that person’.

If we are to better address and reduce family violence then it’s important for men like Veitch to speak up, are open about what they have done and speak about how it may be dealt with. It can be very difficult, but it’s necessary

Tony Veitch pleaded guilty in April 2009 to one charge of reckless disregard causing injury over a January 2006 assault on his former partner. He was sentenced to nine months’ supervision, 300 hours of community service and a $10,000 fine.


Tony Veitch: Acceptance, remorse and recovery

It is 10 years since I turned from the man I’d always wanted to be, to a man I could not control. In January 2006 I made a huge mistake, a grave misjudgment on my behalf that has impacted the lives of many people and for that I am truly sorry.

Even though it was the only time that I have ever lashed out in my life, once was too much. I should have walked away, but instead I hurt someone and I can’t ever make that go away.

I have spent hours alone and in counselling sessions considering my actions that night and wondering why I ever allowed myself to get to that point.

There is no justifiable answer. I have imagined every conceivable scenario to have avoided what I did, but in the end, they were my actions. I take responsibility for that and I will do for the rest of my life.

Poor judgment on my behalf changed so much that day and I apologise unreservedly for that.

My story is public and while that’s hard personally, maybe it is a good thing. Perhaps somewhere it might help someone else make a better decision.

Hopefully it can be a small part of the process of educating New Zealanders that family violence is not okay.

It’s a very important part of helping New Zealanders accept as a given that family violence is not ok.

Veitch goes on to detail some of the difficulties he caused others and difficulties he faced himself as a consequence, including attempting suicide.

I condemned his violent attack, but I applaud what he is doing to help address violence now.

If you’re in danger NOW:

• Phone the police on 111 or ask neighbours of friends to ring for you
• Run outside and head for where there are other people
• Scream for help so that your neighbours can hear you
• Take the children with you
• Don’t stop to get anything else
• If you are being abused, remember it’s not your fault. Violence is never okay

Where to go for help or more information:

• Women’s Refuge: Free national crisisline operates 24/7 – 0800 REFUGE or 0800 733 843
• ShineFree national helpline 9am- 11pm every day – 0508 744
• It’s Not Ok: Information line 0800 456 450
• Shakti: Providing specialist cultural services for African, Asian and Middle Eastern women and their children. Crisisline 24/7 0800 742 584
• Ministry of Justice:
• National Network of Stopping Violence:
• White Ribbon: Aiming to eliminate men’s violence towards women, focusing this year on sexual violence and the issue of consent.

How to hide your visit

If you are reading this information on the Herald website and you’re worried that someone using the same computer will find out what you’ve been looking at, you can follow the steps at the link here to hide your visit. Each of the websites above also have a section that outlines this process.

Herald on Sunday


Herald against family violence

The Herald has started a series on family violence.

Family violence: Emily’s story – ‘When I see her in my dreams she gives me a hug’


New Zealand has the worst rate of family and intimate-partner violence in the world. A shocking 80 per cent of incidents go unreported — so what we know of family violence in our community is barely the tip of the iceberg. Today is part one of We’re Better Than This, a six-day series on family violence. Our aim is to raise awareness, to educate, to give an insight into the victims and perpetrators. We want to encourage victims to have the strength to speak out, and abusers the courage to change their behaviour.

Five years ago Emily Longley was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. Today, her father Mark writes about the terrible toll of losing his daughter — and the hope that her story can help others as the Herald launches a series on family violence.

Their editorial also addresses family violence:

Editorial: Never any excuse for a man to hit a woman

Kiwi males must take lesson on board for NZ to end disgrace of its family violence stats.

Let us not soften the language we use about a man who hits a woman. It has been called domestic violence or partner violence. Our in-depth examination of the problem today and through next week is labelled “family violence” because an entire family suffers when a parent resorts to violence to control a partner or children. But at its most serious level, this problem is men. Not all men, not even most men, and, as some men always point out, not just men. Women can, and do, resort to violence too.

But this subject is too important to be blurred and broadened for the sake of gender neutrality. New Zealand has one of the worst family violence rates in the world and it is a fair bet women are not responsible for most of it, and certainly not the worst of it. We should not listen to claims of provocation, verbal or physical. If we are going to eradicate this disgrace on our society the truth needs to be implanted in every male mind that there is never an excuse for a man to hit a woman.

I’m reluctant to agree with “never an excuse”, just as I’m reluctant to say there should never be war, but it should at least be seen as a rare exception to the rule of non-violence.

But we can and must do more to make it clear that in most situations resorting to violence is simply out of bounds, it shouldn’t happen and it should be made clear that it is unacceptable behaviour.

Men in particular (a minority by sadly a fairly significant minority) are responsible for violence and especially the worst violence.

So men in general have a responsibility to do what they can – which is quite a bit more than has been done in the past – to speak up against family violence and where possible act against family violence.

From the Herald:

If you’re in danger NOW:

• Phone the police on 111 or ask neighbours of friends to ring for you
• Run outside and head for where there are other people
• Scream for help so that your neighbours can hear you
• Take the children with you
• Don’t stop to get anything else
• If you are being abused, remember it’s not your fault. Violence is never okay

Where to go for help or more information:

• Women’s Refuge: Free national crisisline operates 24/7 – 0800 REFUGE or 0800 733 843
• ShineFree national helpline 9am- 11pm every day – 0508 744
• It’s Not Ok: Information line 0800 456 450
• Shakti: Providing specialist cultural services for African, Asian and Middle Eastern women and their children. Crisisline 24/7 0800 742 584
• Ministry of Justice:
• National Network of Stopping Violence:
• White Ribbon: Aiming to eliminate men’s violence towards women, focusing this year on sexual violence and the issue of consent.

How to hide your visit

If you are reading this information on the Herald website and you’re worried that someone using the same computer will find out what you’ve been looking at, you can follow the steps at the link here to hide your visit. Each of the websites above also have a section that outlines this process.

NZ Herald

Speak out on family violence

The NZ Police Commissioner Mike Bush and Police Commissioners from across Australia have launched a joint Leadership Statement and Policing Principles for Protecting Women and Children from Family Violence.

The Police Commissioners have called on the community to challenge behaviour that turns a blind eye to family violence and attitudes which reflect an endemic disrespect of women.

“Police are committed to doing everything in their power to prevent family violence, protect victims and hold perpetrators to account,” says Commissioner Mike Bush.

“But Police cannot prevent family violence on their own. Police Commissioners are calling on the community to act.

“In New Zealand, on average Police respond to a family violence incident every 5 minutes. The statistics are appalling and a stark reminder of how much work we need to do. But we can’t do it alone.

“We need to work together as a community to challenge behaviours and attitudes that condone violence or sexism. We are asking the community to stand up and speak out.

“People often make excuses for violence and police hear these every day. It is never a victim’s fault. It is never ok to use violence and we won’t accept it.

“Living free from violence is everyone’s right and reducing violence is everyone’s responsibility.”

This also applies to commenting here and elsewhere online.

Robust argument is encouraged here, but personal attacks and abusing people (a form of violence), and showing disrespect for gender, racial or religious groups, are not wanted here.

I’m not always on hand to challenge violent and abusive behaviour but the community usually does a good job of stepping in and responding appropriately. Thanks for your help with that. Respectful debate is a joint effort.

Rephrasing the last paragraph from the police statement:

“Commenting free from violence is everyone’s right
and reducing violence is everyone’s responsibility.”

Getting help on violence


Australian campaign against violence culture

An Australian campaign against violence is trying to confront and stop violence where it often starts – childhood.

The Government Is Targeting Young People In This Disturbing Ad Against Domestic Violence

This Sunday the federal government’s ‘Stop it at the start’ ad will begin to air on national TV, a campaign that links domestic violence to a pervasive culture of gender inequality which can be reinforced as early as childhood.

The disturbing ad, which is jointly funded by federal and state and territory governments, depicts the ways in which toxic attitudes towards women are passively drummed into both boys and girls. “He only does that because he likes you,” a mother says to her young daughter, who has been pushed over by a slammed door. A teenage boy takes a photo of a teenage girl who is bending over, as another boy looks away and pretends it’s not happening.

Other scenes show slamming doors and punching of car windows. No one in this ad is hit directly, which is the point — ‘Stop it at the start’ is promoting basic respect, understanding and empathy as the key to stopping the cycle of violence.


It’s hard to know whether this will hit home and reduce violent behaviours, and also acceptance and reinforcement of violent behaviours.

Violence is an entrenched, long term problem that needs both immediate and longer term solutions.

Changing attitudes to lower level violence is a key part of change, because an acceptance of lower level violence is established it can easily escalate, especially as children grow up.

“We are trying to hit directly at that attitudinal and habitual behaviour that sits in the mind of particularly young men and boys,” social services minister Christian Porter told The Guardian. “They [the ads] are designed to confront all of us on our attitudes.

They are confronting in the way we all get confronted from time to time when a trusted source tells us a home truth about some habit or behaviour we have behaved in perennially which is not good.”

Also: Why “Just Saying No” To Violence Against Women Is Harder Than We Like To Think

The biggest and most immediate priority for men who say they’re against domestic and sexual violence is to recognise that men they know and care about are entirely capable of being harassers and abusers, and that they have an obligation to proactively and vigorously confront those men — friends, family members, coworkers — on their behaviour.

That sounds easy, but it’s not. “Saying no to violence against women” is easy when the guy doing it is some vague, hypothetical Other in your head, or a drunken yob who fits your preconceptions of what a violent man looks like.

But when you hear on the grapevine that a friend of yours creeps on women at parties, or that the girlfriend he’s always fighting with has bruises, and you ignore it or make excuses like “but he’s a really good guy,” you are not being neutral or “staying out of it”.

Because other men in your circle are doing it too — defending him, saying “it’s complicated”, grimacing slightly before shrugging it off. It’s the textbook example of how decent, regular people come to be supporters and protectors of abuse. Individual silences that coalesce into a larger unspoken understanding — a conspiracy of collective inaction that acts as a protective buffer around a man’s violent, criminal behaviour. That is not neutral. That is aiding and abetting.

Doing something to confront violent behaviour can awkward, it can be very difficult.

Not doing anything when there is an opportunity to intervene can make things worse.

While the Australian campaign is targeting male violence against females the problem isn’t that simple.Male versus male violence is also a major problem.

Adult violence against children causes significant problems too, including deaths of children.

And there always has been problems of female violence against both females and males, and in some ways female violence seems to be getting worse – see Teenage girls in brutal robbery of superette (in South Auckland).

But that others do it shouldn’t be an excuse for men to do nothing about confronting and reducing violent behaviours.

Violence and religion

In response to a number of comments…

While I think that Islam as a whole has a responsibility to reduce some Muslim tendencies to violence and oppression I don’t think all Muslims can be held responsible for the violence perpetrated by a small minority of radical Muslims.

Just as I don’t think all Christians around the world should be held responsible for the violence of some. And there are many examples of Christians being involved in violent acts, with Hitler and the German Nazis and Mussolini and the Italian Fascists being significant examples.

More recent examples that come to mind are the large scale Rwanda (0.5m-1m deaths) and the ex-Yugoslav states in the 1990s, both involving atrocities on a massive scale.

And more recently (from Christian terrorism):

Central African Republic

Christian militia groups destroyed almost all mosques in the Central African Republic unrest. In 2014, Amnesty International reported several massacres committed by the Anti-balaka against Muslim civilians, forcing thousands of Muslims to flee the country. Other sources report incidents of Muslims being cannibalized.

In May 2014, it was reported that around 600,000 people in CAR were internally displaced with 160,000 of these in the capital Bangui. The Muslim population of Bangui had dropped from 138,000 to 900.

India – Tripura

The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), is a rebel group that seeks the secession of Tripura, North-East India, and is a proscribed terrorist organization in India. Group activities have been described as Christian terrorists engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.

Over 20 Hindus in Tripura were reported to have been killed by the NLFT from 1999 to 2001 for resisting forced conversion to Christianity. According to Hindus in the area, there have also been forced conversions of tribal villagers to Christianity by armed NLFT militants. These forcible conversions, sometimes including the use of “rape as a means of intimidation”, have also been noted by academics outside of India.


The Lord’s Resistance Army, a guerrilla army, was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in 2005. It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves. A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism, it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the “Holy Spirit” which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations. LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.


In 2011, analyst Daryl Johnson of the United States Department of Homeland Security said that the Hutaree Christian militia movement possessed more weapons than the combined weapons holdings of all Islamic terror defendants charged in the US since the September 11 attacks.

In 2015, Robert Doggart, a 63 year old mechanical engineer, was indicted for solicitation to commit a civil rights violation by intending to damage or destroy religious property after communicating that he intended to amass weapons to attack a Muslim enclave in Delaware County, New York.

In November 2015, Robert Lewis Dear killed three and injured nine at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Dear voiced on several occasions his support for radical Christian views and interpretations of the Bible, and praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing “God’s work.” He also described members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion Christian extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings, as heroes.


Christian Identity is a loosely affiliated global group of churches and individuals devoted to a racialized theology which asserts that North Europeanwhites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, God’s chosen people. It has been associated with groups such as the Aryan Nations,Aryan Republican Army, Army of God, Phineas Priesthood, and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. It has been cited as an influence on a number of terrorist attacks around the world, including the 2002 Soweto bombings.

These groups are estimated to have 2,000 members in the United States, and an unknown number in Canada and the rest of the British Commonwealth. Due to the promotion of Christian Identity doctrines through radio and later the Internet, an additional 50,000 unaffiliated individuals are thought to hold Christian Identity beliefs. The primary spread of Christian Identity teachings is believed to be through white supremacist prison gangs.

Others have also mentioned the actions of countries like the USA (in Iraq, Vietnam) and Russia (for example in the Ukraine, Georgia and Chechnya) which have all involved many deaths.

I don’t hold billions of Christians responsible for the violence perpetrated by a few, and neither do I hold all Muslims responsible for the violence of a few.

Just as I don’t hold all men responsible for violence and sexual violence, nor do i hold all feminists responsible for the extreme views and accusations of a small minority.

Blaming and ostracising large numbers of people because of the actions by small minorities is not only wrong and unfair but it is more likely to provoke violence than reduce it.

I condemn all individual, group and state acts of violence no matter what race, religion or nationality is involved.

I think that religion has long been used as a false justification of violence that is contrary to religious and humanitarian principles.

It’s minorities that abuse religion that is the problem. That should be isolated from the larger peaceful demographics –  believe that most people in the world prefer and support peace and non-violence, and that should be encouraged and highlighted more.

Condemning majorities for the actions of small minorities is more likely to provoke and perpetuate violence rather than reduce it.

Small terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS play on the prejudices and fears of people to drive division and animosity between larger groups to try to achieve their aims of wider religious conflict.

Don’t do what they want.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,579 other followers