How amazing has Jacinda been under this pressure? This is what political leadership looks like


‘I can tell you one thing right now. Our gun laws will change’, right from the start Jacinda has shows what real leadership looks like.

From the moment this tragedy started, to right now, she has calmed a frightened and angry nation in a way few others could and she has shown an empathy that has led.

She has shown a grace and compassion that has helped us all weep. This is what true political leadership looks like.

She’s has truly earned the title, ‘Right Honourable’ in the last 2 days hasn’t she?

In a lot of the angry debate swirling right now, please let us remember that this diseased human chose Christchurch BECAUSE NZ is a peaceful progressive multi-cultural society, this violence IS NOT a reflection of us, we were targeted because we are good.

That’s not to say there isn’t much Islamaphobia we need to stamp out, that blogs like Whaleoil with their constant Muslim Hate, David Moffett and the New Conservatives language of violence and a rise of the far right aren’t concerns, but we weren’t targeted because this is us, quite the opposite and we need to remember that as we move forward because while this atrocity must change us, it will not define us.


TDB Recommends


  1. “Our gun laws will change”

    “That blogs like Whaleoil with their constant Muslim Hate, David Moffett and the New Conservatives language of violence and a rise of the far right aren’t concerns.”

    It was disturbing to find on my Facebook newfeeds a leading online 1080 opponent saying, just 24 hours after the event, that he was surprised James Shaw hadn’t been attacked earlier, called Eugenie Sage a c**** and describing them as unelected nutters. And just 24 hours after the terrorism attack, he was posting a page that is going around calling the Christchurch attack a false flag event, designed to represses right wing voices and encourage gun control. He even used the victims for his post against gun control by saying we should be respecting them by not discussing this so soon.
    The point of all this is that New Zealand now has a large number of New Zealanders, violent in words, if not action, who can’t be categorised by the standard white supremist profile. There are shades of this in facebook pages that call themselves things like “One New Zealand” and “The South Island Independent Movement”, but they range from hunters, some of whom believe in a conspiracy that the Department of Conservation plans to get rid of all non native animals in New Zealand (not sure if this is just on conservation land or the whole of the country), to 1080 opponents, to people who think the country is going to swamped with coloured immigrants under the UN agreement, to those opposed to any controls on cats etc, quite often with cross over between them. From what I can see, the 1080 opponents seem to be the most extreme amongst them and they have already committed violent action such as hijacking a helicopter at gunpoint. Apart from being disturbed by the fact that the James Shaw attack and Christchurch gunning seems to have given no pause for concern or thought to some of these people, I think New Zealand security agencies were slow to see the threat posed by white supremists and are only now going to take them seriously, but will be just as slow in taking seriously the threats of violence posed by other conservative groups. If someone is using threatening language on social media, then they deserve to be taken seriously. Not all of them will act out their opinions with violence but it only takes one.

    • ESOTERIC PINEAPPLES – well said.

      I drive from Napier to Gisborne every two weeks, and even see a lot of “road rage” now so we are becoming a violent nation, – no doubt about it.

      • 100% on the increasing violence.
        TV is full of it, violence, victim, hood, confilct and fear.

        Most of it imported from gun toting Hollywood, one of the most violent rambo cultures in the world.

        We suffer the effects of mindless exposure to that.

      • @ CLEANGREEN.
        I think you’re seeing the effects of Meth, aka P. I had a fun experience leaving Helensville not long ago, then some time later while driving up the Kilmog into Dunedin late one night. On both occasions I took a dim view of being tail gated at the 105 k open rd speed I have my foot set to.
        If that’s the effects of P? Then how about having some of the effects of E instead, if we must have effects at all? A fellow down this way had his head stamped flat. Literally. I was told there was brain tissue stuck into the gravel rd his body was found on. That was P related.
        On E? He’d a been hugged into a daze then he’d a taken his clothes off and rolled about on some cool, damp meadow under the moon.
        Don’t be fooled by this, or the other callous government fuckers who really, actually, honestly don’t give a fuck about us. No matter how abhorrent we treat each other as a graphic collateral effect of how they pocket our money then treat us like dirt. All they see is money baby.
        Adern’s pulling $470 K plus entitlements and expenses while she walks past the wretched and homeless and who are often in poor health and winter’s coming.
        And no one had better try to argue that things take time to change! Bull shit they do.
        Just fucking do it ! Gun control! That nutter used guns to shoot people.
        Lets see now? If that pumped up little nutter never had guns….. Uuummm ?? How’d he shoot an’ that?? An ardent hunter needs only two guns. A long range rifle to pink-mist a deer brain for a giggle a kilometre away and a shotgun to down the dangerous duck over here threatening the American way of life that’s settling in like herpies to pounce later. Or a rabbit or a Hare? You been cornered by a rabbit! They’ll scratch your eyes out! ( If you’re unfortunate enough to be only eight inches tall. If you have Leprechaun friends you should probably warn them about lout rabbits out looking for a stoush. Or stop eating schrooms of an evening on an empty brain. ) Hares? They’re nomadic and don’t dig burrows. They’re beautiful wee beasties and a joy to observe. So, yeah/nah. Shoot, shoot,shoot! kill, kill, kill an’ that aye?
        The biggest problem with a democracy is that [we] become governed by the lowest common denominator. And there are some pretty low fuckers out there man.
        Re adern?
        You know what barman? Fuck it. Make that a double Meh!

  2. Can’t help comparing Jacinda Adern’s genuine and inspiring leadership at this time with what might have been that of our opposition spokespeople.

    Even Trump tried to sound sympathetic as he laboriously read his prepared script but couldn’t stay on track and sank into a meandering self promotion about his absurd wall.

    • Yes my wife said that Simple Simon was standing next to Jacinda and he looked as uncomfortable as a shit on his head would feel.

      Simon Bridges is a ‘strawman’ for more evil types ready to knife him.

      National rare pure evil and jacinda looked far more as a leader than anyone else on either side of the aisle.

      She needs to clean out the rot inside labour such as ‘Clare Cullen’ and others who do absolutely nothing for us constituents.

  3. Do you honestly think any of the affected people will feel any better as a result of either sides attempts to appear compassionate?
    Do you think it is appropriate to make knee jerk statements about gun control straight away like that rather than a properly considered policy analysis?
    I have never owned a gun and most likely never will, but it is ridiculous to come out with statements like this.

    • Jays, let me share this with you, regarding Australia’s ban on semi-automatic firearms;

      So what happened after the assault-weapon ban? Well therein lies the other half of the story twist noted above: Nothing.

      Nothing, that is, in a good way.

      Australian independence didn’t end. Tyranny didn’t come. Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate.

      As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years.

      In 2002, a mentally impaired student at Monash University in Melbourne shot two people dead and injured five others. He came to his rampage with six handguns, not an assault rifle. Had he been carrying an AR-15, the toll would have been far worse. But even so, Australian lawmakers added a new National Handgun Agreement, a separate buyback act, and a reformulated gun trafficking policy to their legislative arsenal.

      There has been no similar shooting spree since.


      Funny how when there is a recall on a faulty electrical product or contaminated food, there is never a counter-argument that a re-call is “knee jerk”.

      It worked in Australia. It’s just a tragedy (and a reminder how bloody complacent we can be) we never implemented it here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Fifty people might still be alive today.

      • I have no particular issue with increased gun control if it is done in a sensible and considered manner.
        This ain’t that. It smells far more of political opportunism, to appear righteous and to push a policy barrow that might not have otherwise been possible.
        Quite frankly party heads on both sides seem opportunistic at this point and it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

        • What do you mean “sensible and considered manner”, Jays? Please elucidate.

          As for “political opportunism”, need I remind you that 50 people were slaughtered by a fanatic armed with one of those MSSAs. That’s what leaves a “nasty taste” in my mouth.

          • He means opportunistically using a horrific event like this to ram through (potentially far-reaching) knee-jerk legislation without the usual considered public debate. I’m assuming you’re also against that purely on principle? There is no urgency needed to change gun laws – one nutter is not an epidemic that requires immediate action to change the law – which does need changing BTW – assault rifles have no place in NZ , but that is just my opinion.

            • Well I proposed ramming it through not by knee jerking but by integrating Australia’s gun control reform agenda under John Howard into our own. Why reinvent the wheel when Australia has already cleared the path for us. The cost of doing so is minimal, bit of lesglisation, some gun bomb fires, in exchange for all the peace of mind in the world.

              • Australia’s gun reforms were imo far-reaching and an over reaction.
                You do realise we could get cut road toll to literal zero and thus save hundreds of lives per year by simply banning cars? Is that hyperbolic? Definitely. The point I’m trying to make is that every “right” we take away from law-abiding people in the name of “safety” is by definition a loss of liberty – something I’m assuming you’re against(?).
                Is utopia iyo being being permanently confined to your house because anything other than that is “putting lives (including your own) in danger”? I, for one, don’t want to live in that world.

                • Nitrium, why don’t you come out and just say it: you’re a gun nut and banning deadly weapons that no citizen has a rational reason to own makes you sweat.

                  Conflating cars with guns?? You’re shitting us, right?? Have you been reading too much NRA shit from the US or what?

                  You’re worried about “loss of liberty” to own deadly weapons??

                  To hell with that. I’m more worried about the families of the 50 dead people in Christchurch.

                  THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT: 50 dead people and you’re wanking on about gun ownership rights. You disgust me.

                  • I don’t own a gun and I don’t want one. So wrong. Cars do kill hundreds per year. And they have been used in terrorist attacks (e.g. Nice). There is no conflating anything. If saving lives is the only goal, then banning the thing that kills said lives is justified, according to you.

                    • Guns vs cars huh?

                      That’s parroting the official NRA line Nitrium.

                      Next thing you’ll be telling us is GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE , PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. ( Though much more efficiently if you use a semi-automstic)

                  • This is a reply to something much lower down (you can only reply so deep in these comment threads). I clearly said “just killing”, which you utterly (deliberately?) ignore. By your argument, cars clearly aren’t for “just transport” either, if the actions of the Nice terrorist is anything to go by (deliberately leaving 86 dead).

                    • You still equate cars with guns?


                      When is the last time you took your gun to work?? I notice youre studiously ignoring that point


                      Because your conflation is BULLSHIT thats why

                • Nitrium, there is no such “right” as to own firearms. You’re confusing us with the US.

                  We have a right to vote; not to be unreasonably detained by the State; to legal representation; etc. We do not have a “right” to guns.

                  After the slaughter at Port Arthur where a young man went crazy and shot dead 35 people and wounded 23, using a semi-automatic weapon (MSSA), I hardly think the Australian government’s decision to call “enough is enough” was ” far-reaching and an over reaction”. In fact I am chilled by your description of the Australian ban on MSSAs as an “over reaction” in the face of 35 dead people.

                  At what point isn’t it an over-reaction? Obviously not 35 or 50.

                  • I said “right” in quotations on purpose – since it is a “right” only bestowed by law. We don’t have a “right” to cars either, BTW, but I’m pretty sure you’d be annoyed if they were taken away completely in the name of safety. France didn’t ban private vehicles after they were used in Nice in a terrorist attack that killed 86 people. Should they have iyo? How about banning all private vehicles for non-work related reasons, if the economic fallout of an outright ban isn’t realistic? If not, why not?

                    • Because you are grasping at straws, Nitrium. The whole banning guns=banning cars is a red herring. A false equivalence. It’s ludicrous “logic” that can be used to justify anything you want.

                      Really, if you can’t find any other rational than the cars/guns conflation, then you don’t have one.

                      There are no rights or “rights” to gun ownership, it’s as simple as that.

                  • You keep telling me it’s a false equivalence but don’t explain how. Both guns (e.g. for pest control and humane killing of animals for meat) and cars can be used for legitimate work and recreation… but also for killing people (including accidents). The reason no-one wants cars banned in the wake of a terrorist attack (such as that in Nice) is only because almost everyone has one and they don’t want to give them up in the name of safety. If everyone had a gun, the equivalence is imo is surely similar. So this is more a “wants of the many” outweighing the “wants of the few” argument, given it only affects the 6% of the population who legally own guns. Is that about right?
                    Don’t get me wrong, banning semi-auto rifles is a pretty good idea imo because they are not really needed, but then a similar argument can be made for banning fast cars given how many people they kill each year in accidents. Right?

                    • You keep telling me it’s a false equivalence but don’t explain how.

                      Let me spell it out.

                      The purpose of guns is to kill.

                      The purpose of cars is transport.

                      Suggesting that cars be treated as guns is a false equivalence because guns have no other purpose.

                      It is a lazy argument you are presenting because once the ludicrous attempt at conflation is stripped away, there is no other justification for ownership of semi-automatics.

                      You can just as easily justify anything with that kind of false logic. It’s a mind-game, but with deadly consequences if it results in paralysis.

                    • Nitrium, you dont understand the difference between guns and cars??

                      Ok, let me explain.

                      Take your car to work on Monday.

                      Take a gun to work on Tuesday.

                      See what happens.

                      I’ll read about the consequences in the Court reporting to follow.

                    • Nitrium, it *IS* a false equivalence. (And a ridiculous one at that)

                      You can kill people with rocks. Shall we ban rocks and turn a blind eye to semi automatics??

                      Oh but thats ridiculous I hear you say?? Now you know how youre coming across to us.

                      Drawing false equivalences muddies the debate. It plays into the hands of gun nuts. And believe me, you dont end up looking clever, becayse we’ve heard that bullshit before.

                  • The purpose of guns isn’t just “killing” Frank, and you know it. Many people fire guns for fun with no killing involved. Indeed, shooting is an Olympic sport! Your argument would also apply to archery, if origins are important.

                    Fast cars similarly serve no purpose (given slower alternatives), and are involved in a very disproportionate number of accidents and deaths. Yet no knee-jerk legislation is ever rammed through under urgency when the latest teenager needlessly dies in those death traps.
                    This nutjob with a gun grabs headlines only because so many died in a single event. Putting emotions aside (I get that this is hard), is there a genuine difference if 50 people die over the course of a year or all at once? People needlessly dying when we could do something about it is surely always bad, all the time, right? Or only when it comes to guns?

                    • Guns arent for killing, huh??

                      Armies around the world must’vevmissed the memo on that one Nitrium.

                      You’re playing silly mind games. Thats disrespecful to those who paid the price for gun nuts for their socalled “right” to keep these lethal things.

                      If you really dont get it, try going around town with a gun and see how far you get.

            • Correct.
              I have no time for nor interest in guns but the same can be said for alcohol and cannabis.
              However, I don’t actually want any of these things outlawed (at least not completely).
              I agree with most commenters here that private citizens have no need (as opposed to a want) for semi automatic weapons.
              But my opinion is but one and I have no interest in this or any other government taking such action without a good.measure of consultation and perhaps a referendum.

              Remember that if the Government can ram through something that limits someone else’s rights they can do the same to your rights.

              • “Remember that if the Government can ram through something that limits someone else’s rights they can do the same to your rights.”

                Jays (and Nitrium), we’re not talking about RIGHTS. Gun ownership is not a right. Voting is a right. By what imagination is gun ownership a “right”?? This aint the US of A, mate.

                Gun ownership is a privilege controlled by law. You don’t get to buy or own a gun by “right”, because that is not a thing.

                Sorry to burst your bubble. Welcome to reality.

                • Car ownership isn’t a “right” either. They have been used in multiple terrorist attacks (and in the case of Nice, with more deaths than this one). Should cars be banned in cities to avoid future attacks – given they can effectively be used as a mass death weapon in crowded spaces? Given sufficient public transport in cities to get where you need to be, why not ban cars there, even now, as a preemptive measure to avoid a Nice style attack (that left 86 dead)? What have you got to lose? See, it’s all fine and good until they take away something you want.
                  While I have zero interest in guns I’m playing devil’s advocate here anyway, because I try to consider things from someone else’s perspective – as opposed to knee-jerk mostly emotionally driven reactions to (hopefully rare) tragic events that end up depriving law-abiding people (which factually is the vast majority) of something they enjoyed.

                  • The standard NRA line, conflating cars with guns. Big standard response.

                    As I told you Nitrium, try taking a gun to work in lieu of your car and see what happens

                    There’s no comparison

                    You say you’re not into guns? Well fuck me, you’re devoting a shitload of time and effort and postings minimising the lethality of semi automatics. If youre gun a gun nut, youre making a damn good impression of one

                    Calling the mass murder of 50 people and addressing the easy availability of semi automatics as ” knee jerk responses” sez more about you than you understand

                    If you had an iota of empathy you wouldn’t be posting this kind of bullshit

                  • “Car ownership isn’t a “right” either. ”

                    No one said it was Nitrium

                    Youre the one bringing up rights that dont exist

                    Yeah, some terrorists used cars and trucks. The Nice terrorist did that, McVeigh used a truck and explosives

                    The point is those ARENT weapons. They were weaponised

                    Guns are weapons.they serve no other purpose. All your verbal gymnastics doesnt prive anything except thats your sole argument. You got nothing else

  4. As a kiwi in a distant land, let me say yes, you have a fine lady in your leadership position, New Zealand. She reflects well on you for choosing her. Bravo, my country, my native land.

    • Agreed Juliana. I’m a bit of a cynic (not a surprise, I guess) but in Ardern’s case, she has risen to the challenge. Her performance (if I can call it that in a non-derogatory way) has been outstanding

      God help us if Key had still been PM!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Jacinda has steely resolve first seen at her press conference when she was elected Labour leader.
    This will be the making of her premiership and sadly it took an insane Australian committing mass murder here to bring it into focus.
    I firmly believe that had this happened under Key and his cronies they would have maximized it for their own agenda.
    It would have suited Key down to the ground.
    You would never have seen the compassion Jacinda is now exercising.
    For the first time in 11 years we actually have someone who is leading and authoritative and prepared to DO something rather than offer excuses or lie point blank to New Zealanders or just make it up as you go along.

  6. The current sport for kiwi cognoscenti, is reading the person before reading the card attached to the soft toy/candle/bunch of flowers placed as publicly as possible then deciding which of the two lines neolib airhead Ardern offered up within an hour of the murders, that particular person will have written on the attached card.
    The most popular seems to be the probable lie “this not us” as Christchurch has had a well known & thoroughly documented problem with white supremacy since the mid 70’s days of skinheads & punks – the kids of Christchurch mostly went for skinheadism & nazi salutes when just about all the rest of Aotearoa opted for J. Rotten, safety pins & punks. The reason is the usual, I reckon, back then unwhite people were not in huge supply in ChCh whereas I doubt it was possible to grow up in Auckland or Wellington without Maori & Pacifica friends or family.

    The other line Jacinda offered up is “They are us” They meaning kiwis who practised Islam. This more obviously inclusive line has been used but not as often as the first one. In the end it barely matters since both are simple avoidances, devices on tap to all kiwis who prefer not to think too hard about the mindsets which provide a suitable environment for a fascist to feel at home or at least a little bit at home.
    Kiwi pols don’t have quite as bad a record of overt racism that Oz pols including a former Oz Prime Minister. see can boast mebbe Winston “Mr Dogwhistle” Peters in the 90’s if he had exceeded his scotch quota that day.

    The Australians keep electing the arseholes too.
    Altho it need be pointed out that like Joh, Hanson was born in Aotearoa.

    Grafton the town in NSW where the murderer comes from, only has one industry and one employer The Department of Corrections, for Grafton is the home of the most notorious prison in Australia. Grafton prison was much featured in the 117 volume “Outcomes of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody”.

    Most prisons in NSW are mainly staffed by screws who have a bit of a live & let live mindset translated as “If you don’t cause a lot of trouble with yer penchants for sex & drugs, we won’t give you any trouble” Not so Grafton prison, which was the boogieman that recalcitrant inmates would be threatened with a sojourn in if they didn’t pull up their socks.

    Many inmates beaten to death, tortured and maimed. Over the decades there were so many inquiries into Grafton Prison that in the end the state government gave up closed the f***er down and bulldozed most of it. That didn’t impress the local Graftonites who needed a steady supply of unfortunates to torture so the government almost immediately decided to ask for tenders for a ‘private correctional facility’. The locals could continue to get their rocks off but the government couldn’t be held accountable.

    A cobber of mine who had the bad luck to spend a few years slotted up in Grafton swears that many of the prison screws are descended from the jacks who were charged with disciplining the original transportees to Botany Bay – more than 200 years of oppressing others.

    Of course none of that doesn’t excuse the little creep (see how 1.75m coppers tower over the slug) who shot everyone from two year old children to men in their 80’s, but it does provide some context into the screwed up community from which he sprang & who will meet with the Grafton bible bashers tonite, also clutching signs claiming “This is not us” & replete with faux denial. No “They are us” signs will be visible at the Grafton knees-up.

  7. I have been somewhat critical of Jacinda as PM and of her government. I have also held back with commenting over recent days, as it really shook me up what happened in Christchurch.

    But given this crisis, and the challenges coming with it, Jacinda has been formidable in her conduct and wise words on matters of greatest concern and grief. I also note she has given an interview to Al Jazeera English, which may perhaps be worth watching and listening to.

    We have many problems that need solving, but in such moments leadership is asked for, and Jacinda has offered humane and moral leadership at a high level.

Comments are closed.