How to combat Islamophobia and white supremacy

159
20

It was heartwarming to be part of such a big and diverse crowd in Auckland’s Aotea Square yesterday standing in solidarity with the Islamic community after the terrible massacre in Christchurch. There were many passionate speeches highlighting the need to come together to fight racism and Islamophobia.

Many New Zealanders have picked up Jacinda Ardern’s theme “this is not us” but unfortunately this message is only partly true. Islamophobia is deeply embedded in our society. Former Race Relations commissioner Susan Devoy says that “every single Muslim woman I know has faced racist abuse of some kind right here in our towns, on Facebook, in the media.”

In order to deal with this we have to understand where New Zealand’s Islamophobia comes from, and what sustains it. It goes a long way back. Settlers in colonial New Zealand were deeply Islamophobic and white supremacist. Our white settlers saw themselves as superior to the “dark” people in the Muslim world and they treated Christianity as the only true religion. New Zealand supported Britain’s wars in the Middle East and south Asia in the 19th and 20th centuries. These wars continue up until today, but with Britain now playing a subordinate role to the United States.

The white supremacist and Islamophobic message presented today is that Islam is a violent religion, or at least has the capacity to take a violent form, and this has to be combated by the intervention of Western powers. This is the excuse given for Western military action in several Islamic nations including Libya, Somalia, the Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Of course, there have been violent and extreme political currents in some of these Islamic countries, often generating a public flowing from their opposition to corrupt (Western-backed) governments, or their opposition to foreign military intervention. Now we are in a vicious circle of foreign intervention begetting jihadism, and jihadism begetting foreign intervention, and so it goes on. And that has set off another vicious circle with the Islamophobia in Western nations upsetting the local Muslim community, motivating a few extreme elements to commit violent acts, which results in more Islamophobia, and so it goes around.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Whether consciously or not, successive New Zealand governments have helped foster this modern Islamophobia by participating in the American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and not speaking out against Western military action in places like the Yemen, Libya and Somalia. The Western propaganda around those wars has fostered prejudice towards Muslims living in New Zealand.

If we really want to combat Islamophobia and white nationalism we should withdraw our remaining soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan and not participate further in America’s wars in Islamic countries.

We should also withdraw from the Five Eyes, and intelligence network based on the white supremacist premise that five “anglo” nations (the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) have the right to spy on every other nation. The Five Eyes operates mainly in the interests of Donald Trump’s America helping him, for example, to implement his Islamophobic ban on the citizens of several Islamic nations entering the United States. It should be noted that the killer in Christchurch, Brenton Tarrant, called Trump “a symbol of renewed white identity” in his manifesto justifying the massacre.

Given the Islamophobic ethos of Western intelligence agencies, led by the United States, we should be against strengthening our anti-terrorist laws or allowing more intrusive state surveillance. Such an approach won’t help the Muslim community.

The reality is that the longstanding Crimes Act, which has been used to charge the current offender, covers all cases of murder, kidnapping, bombing and membership of a criminal group. Separate anti-terrorism legislation is clearly unnecessary. The only (failed) attempt to use the existing Terrorism Suppression Act has been against local dissenters, in the Operation 8 case.

One takeaway from the Christchurch massacre seems to be that a violent act by a “lone wolf” is very hard to detect. Rather than move towards a surveillance society, our resources would be better devoted to promoting community tolerance and the understanding of diverse cultures. Reducing the prevalence of Islamophobia in our society is the best path to take.

159 COMMENTS

  1. Thank you Keith
    At last!
    For showing the bigger picture rather than individualising the islamaphobia….as a nutcase outlier rather than a susceptible product of decades of war propaganda that “others” Muslims so as to buy public consent to slaughter them for their resources.

  2. I think the last thing we need to do is reduce our intelligence gathering ability against extremists of ALL persuasions. Thankfully the current government is unlikely to agree with you either.

    • Gosman, I don’t think anyone was suggesting that the security apparatus ” reduce our intelligence gathering ability against extremists of ALL persuasions”.

      The questions we have – and I can’t think of any clearer way of putting this – is why white supremacists/nationalists/far-right were not on their “radar”? Why were the GCSB and SIS so focused on bloggers and investigative journalists – but no one had “any intelligence” (as Police Commissioner Bush admitted) on these people.

      God knows these extremists had a strong presence on social media. If they were hiding, they couldn’t have been in plainer sight.

      After all the laws that were passed increasing State surveillance; after all the millions thrown at the GCSB and SIS; after all the events surrounding the far-right overseas – why were the GCSB and SIS not scrutinising our own extremists?

      I repeat the call: where were they?!?!

      • The person carrying out this activity was a White Supremacist from Australia who engaged in online chat forums. Gathering intelligence on people like him is what the 5-eyes network should be about. Attempting to do this all on our own would be a hell of a lot harder.

        • Gos, I feel totally let down by our security services. I’d like to think that they are clever enough to look at the right things. This idiot was as you imply online right out in the open. It raises a question to me about what value our current security services provide and to whom?

          • I agree they let us down and should redirect resources towards this kind of threat. That does not mean we should do away with them or reduce our ability to get intelligence on people such as the terrorist who carried out the Christchurch attacks.

            • Who is saying that Gosman? We’re saying they shoukd be focused wherevthe actual tgreat is coming from

              Not too much to ask i woukd have though

      • An ex military army member of the NZ Public went to the NZ Police about these guys at the Milburn Rifle Range near Milton however the complaint wasn’t taken seriously by the NZ Police.

        • Still doesn’t mean anything if the information isn’t filtered properly. A copy of manifesto, all 72 pages was also given to Jacinda’s office, granted 9 minutes before bullets started flying but even still. What’s some one to do with a terrorist bible? Use it for kindling our something I guess. Would take at least a couple of days to brake it down into readable chunks, match it with some investigations and make some recommendations and hand the report over to the PM to start kicking some ass. Non of that was done. The prime ministers advisers are just lobbing hand grenades at her and fucking ducking for cover.

      • Think i just heard on radio a spokesperson for the gcsb/sis stating that what they really need is”MORE SURVEILLANCE POWERS”?????

        • Yeah, I think I heard that as well. Was it Corin Dann, presenting an intro for tonight’s Q+A?

          Bizarre. If that’s his angle, his ignorance is gob-smacking, considering the vast increase in State surveillance powers already.

            • Freedom to spew hate? To be honest, Keepcalmcarryon, that wouldn’t be a problem for me (to curtail hate speech). When far right terror attacks occur, I’m not the one to bear the brunt. My skin colour is white. Pity those who aren’t quite so “lucky”.

              Who knows, if we can curtail hate-speech we might just prevent another terrorist attack. Getting rid of semi-automatic weapons is also a good start.

              If all this sounds “hard line”, maybe it’s because of what I wrote in October last year. New Zealand can be very naive and complacent and 15 March should’ve shaken the bejeezus out of us. If we haven’t learned the lesson yet, that the far right is not here to play games by Gentlemen’s Rules, then we haven’t learned a thing.

              This has been the first terrorist attack by the far right. Unfortunately, I suspect it won’t be the last.

              • Well then we are pretty much trying to prove conspiracy to commit terrorism and we can compare the $2 million price tag just for surveilling the Urawera Four. Not including raid and closed court costs. We could be talking about tens of millions of dollars and peaking to over 200 staff per counter terrorist operation and all this doesn’t come out of a vacuum. Armed Offenders and Special Tactics units need a boost for sure, I’m sure they’ll want to get that 5 minute response time down. Each minute they save on deploying is literally worth 10 lives over minute.

              • Given that AR15s sold out over the weekend, and the NZ gun law doesn’t track individual guns, only owners, i would suggest that this genie is well and truly out of the bottle

                    • Well we are taking semi retard (semi auto) off the market. In what styles I don’t know but we are taking them right off the market so they either find a home with an approved institution or they’re going on the scrap heap.

            • “Prepare to give up more freedom..”

              Gun ownership is not a freedom

              It is a responsibility. Some mis-use it with catastrophic consequences

      • Completely hit the nail on the head. My assumption is its because of the inherent racism that exists in white NZ at a basic unselfaware macho bogan level, that its probably not even been flagged as racism or worse, is tacitly accepted…. yeah those white wing extremists are just a bit further along that trajectory a lot of NZers live on. Wow there will be some serious head scratching going on now for this massive and tragic fail. Might even wake them up to themselves. Just not looking under that particular rock…is pathetic and an admission of bro culture.

    • If our intelligence organisations can miss the first major terrorist act in NZ then what good are they? American intelligence missed Timothy McVey for the same reason, the members of the intelligence community has a mindset that excludes the “us” from their gaze. They need to be disestablished because they can not conceptualise a world in which people from our community may be harmful. We do not need more surveillance, we need less people to feel that violence is the answer. As a child of the sixties I can tell you living in a less diverse society was not as great as it is being made out by the right wing, especially if you were part of a not “us” group. Not “us” back then included families that were poor, families with a person that had an acknowledged mental disability, families that did not have all the gadgets, families who rented their house.

      • “If our intelligence organisations can miss the first major terrorist act in NZ then what good are they? ”

        Yeah, yiu gotta wonder Lucy. All those hundreds of millions thrown at the spooks and they couldnt do their ONE FUCKING JOB. Too busy surveilling Martyn, Nicky, Greenpeace, etc I guess.

        Useless.

        We need a Royal Commision snd we need heads to roll.

  3. The only way Western countries can influence politics in countries where we think the political structure could be improved is by showing a better example. Not by moving into these countries, forcing different structures and social/ economic / political changes and taking over managing their natural resources. They don’t respond any differently to the way we would respond to an outside power taking over our government.
    The West needs to back off and offer real help from outside when it is asked for. And only as much as is asked for.
    D J S

  4. White supremacy? When every identity status declares its own distinct position and rights what do you expect other marginalised identities to do? If you tell marginalised white working class people whose jobs have been offshored, whose religion and local institutions have been eroded, that they are thick, uneducated boofheads….well there is a good chance that they will gang together for all the wrong reasons.

    That NZ was colonial with what we regard today as unhealthy attitudes to race and religion shows two things.

    First that we have advanced hugely in terms of common acceptance. Look at how many turned out from every part of our nation to greive, we are no longer the Anglo centric uniculture. We’ve embraced diversity, so let’s celebrate that.

    Second we need to stop searching out and excluding people based on current or past perceived misdeeds. Being descended from colonial whites is not a demerit, to identify “whites” as racist, intolerant etc is to hold a mirror to oneself. To be Islamic doesn’t make you a threat or subversive infiltrator.

    The events have superheated the debate. Blaming “white supremacists” is just too easy. Who are they? Have you ever met one? Id suggest that academics like Keith, and Left leaning politicians, and middle class educated bloggers actually talk to the great mass of common garden whites of all classes. They will tell you to stop challenging their culture and past, and to address real issues like offshoring jobs, rather than telling them their attitude sucks. We have to stop unhealthy narratives that give succor to warped minds. We need to be one.

    • You are starting to sound suspiciously close to being an apologist with white supremacists, Nick. There is no room for that kind of racist scumbaggery in our society. End of.

      • Suspicion is for ideologues and witch hunters Frank. Diversity of opinion requires open debate. You want to label me prove it.

          • keep to open debate Frank. Don’t try to close people down by applying labels. Calling someone an apologist and talking of racial scumbaggery is just the other side of the coin that the supremacists use.

            • Not at all, Peter. Calling it out is rejecting their toxic ideology. If you have a better solution, feel free to share it.

              I look forward to understanding how you would deal with the poison of nationalism, white supremacists, and other far right dogma.

              • I don’t think Nick was writing as an apologist for white supremacists I think he was trying to narrate some of the reasons some white people feel marginalized even in an overwhelmingly white culture. Whether or not they have any valid reason to feel this way,if their logic is twisted, their facts are wrong their view of history distorted does not matter. They ‘feel’ marginalized and some will act on that feeling. We need to find the reasons some people become white supremacists. Nick was offering some reasons. Trying to understand doesn’t mean supporting them.

                • If so, Peter, not only would a simple clarification have resolved that – I probably would’ve agreed that there are indeed underlying causes. (Which Gosman, on another blogpost discussion is anxious to deflect from.)

                  If that is indeed the case, we both screwed up on our assessment of each other.

      • I would be very careful here yourself Frank. You are guilty of trying to close down debate yourself AND to be incredibly judgmental about someone you have probably never met. Seeking and exploring historical and contemporary explanations/root causes is not the same as supporting or condoning – you damned well know it doesn’t. Racism exists in New Zealand just like anywhere else (I assume New Zealander’s are human – or are they truly Godzone?) – look at the numerous attacks on Asians in Auckland and elsewhere, exploitation of immigrant workers. It extends from (relatively) mild Anglophobia through to outright scorn and contempt of Maori – from the mouths of apparently “decent” middle class Pakeha. Part of the problem here, as I see it from an Englisman’s view, is the incredible smugness with which (white) Kiwis see themselves – you included.

        • Liminal, I make no judgements except from what I’m reading;

          White supremacy? When every identity status declares its own distinct position and rights what do you expect other marginalised identities to do? If you tell marginalised white working class people whose jobs have been offshored, whose religion and local institutions have been eroded, that they are thick, uneducated boofheads….well there is a good chance that they will gang together for all the wrong reasons.

          […]

          Being descended from colonial whites is not a demerit, to identify “whites” as racist, intolerant etc is to hold a mirror to oneself.

          […]

          Blaming “white supremacists” is just too easy.

          How else should one interpret those comments?

          If Nick has not made himself clear, then he should explain what he means.

          If it is “smug” to challenge white supremacist views – count me in.

          • Frank you interpret comments by engaging your brain and taking off your ideological blinkers. I’m prepared to be wrong, it’s part of the engagement. I have read enough of you to know that you hold ideological certainty and prejudgement. At best that is lazy, at worse it leads to good intentions doing evil.

            • Nick, you may need to give greater clarity in your,earning. When I first read your comments aboveI certainly mistook them to be apologist for white supremacy. If you’re coming at this from an observational standpoint, we just need that amplified.

              Otherwise I hate to say it, but it comes across too ambiguous to be certain of your position.

          • Nick has been commenting here and on Bowalley Road
            for a long time so his opinions on a wide range of subjects are well represented. If you Frank , can mike any kind of bigot out of him you will include every person of European decent but yourself in that category.
            D J S

            • Actually David, if you look at Nick’s commebts above, they certsinly sound like an apologist for white supremacy. What about you? Playing the man but not what’s been said?

              If Nick resiles from white supremacist views, he has the forum here to say it.

              • I’ve just looked again at the comments Frank chose to exemplify . Starting “white supremacy ?” a question. He is asking for a definition.Then I assume he refers to Hillary Clinton’s term “Deplorables”and the section of US population that term was meant to refer to. Followed by the election of Donald Trump with that section of US society’s support. That is a historical fact . Those people felt marginalised . Many in another time would have been democrat supporters .
                In this I agree with Nick in this, he didn’t say they made the right choice, he said their choice could be explained.
                I also agree with the other two quotes. If you don’t I think you should think about them . Again if that makes Nick (and me ) a “White Supremacist” then it makes all people of European decent white supremacists .
                In saying “Blaming “white supremacists” is just too easy.” he is not defending white supremacists , he is saying that using that term without definition of identification as an explanation for this atrocity is grossly inadequate and I agree.
                D J S

                • my text

                  David, I am not referring to the issue of Clinton’s “deplorables”. Stop deflecting by raising a strawman argument I never made. That is dishonest. It’s also obviously a desperate smear attempt from you.

                  Again if that makes Nick (and me ) a “White Supremacist” then it makes all people of European decent white supremacists .
                  In saying “Blaming “white supremacists” is just too easy.” he is not defending white supremacists , he is saying that using that term without definition of identification as an explanation for this atrocity is grossly inadequate and I agree.

                  So the question remains, David; do you identify/support/endorse the White Supremacist agenbda. It’s a fairly straight forward question. A simple “Hell Yes!” or “Fuck No!” will suffice.

                  Your suggestion that the use of the white supremacist “term without definition of identification as an explanation for this atrocity is grossly inadequate” flies in the face of the ‘manifesto’ that the alleged terrorist distributed. His entire ‘manifesto’ is bog-standard white supremacy stuff. Your denial of that flies in the face of the alleged shooter’s own admissions.

                  White supremacists are only one part of the far-right movement. In this case, the label is applied correctly.

                  • “Say you aren’t a racist or you are a racist” you are better than that Frank.
                    Just as it’s possible to discuss what contributes to Islamic terrorism, surely it’s important to examine the roots of far right terrorists.
                    The deeds are deplorable but if we want to prevent recurrence then we are going to have to go much deeper than rounding on 250000 blameless law abiding gun owners in NZ as is currently the vogue.

                    • “Say you aren’t a racist or you are a racist” you are better than that Frank.

                      It’s a call for a simple clarification, Keepcalmcarryon. It’s what I do. If I have the ‘wrong end of the stick’, I bite my tongue and move on. But I’d like clarification.

                      Just as it’s possible to discuss what contributes to Islamic terrorism, surely it’s important to examine the roots of far right terrorists.

                      Agreed.

                      The deeds are deplorable but if we want to prevent recurrence then we are going to have to go much deeper than rounding on 250000 blameless law abiding gun owners in NZ as is currently the vogue.

                      I doubt anyone is considering “rounding on 250000 blameless law abiding gun owners”. If we go down the Aussie road, it would mean a ban on semi-automatic weapons and probably a buy-back scheme.

                      The world didn’t end for Australia. But what did end was mass shootings by maniacs using MSSAs. That has to be a good thing.

                      Going by some comments on social media, there appears to be the germinating of cross-party agreement between some National Party affiliated people, and many on the left. Only some of the conservatives are resisting.

                  • I was referencing your quotation of the comment that Nick made. I was making assumptions of what he meant not what you meant Frank.
                    If the manifesto is a good enough example of a white supremacist definition then “hell No” would be the obvious response. I’m quite sure Nick’s is the same.
                    D J S

          • Smugness refers to the general attitude New Zealanders have about themselves – being superior in moral quality/ tolerance/kindness etc over other nationalities (particularly Australians and English). It is persistent and prevalent in the media as well – even on this website, and blinds to you realities. Societal problems and tensions are not as severe here as they are in countries such as the UK, much of Europe and Australia because immigration patterns, including those of Islamic faith, are not similar or equivalent. So, it is not surprising that the existential shock following the Christchurch attack has been severe, but racism here does exist, does express itself violently sometimes,and NZ has been complicit in killing (probably illegally) Muslims abroad too.

        • “I would be very careful here yourself Frank. You are guilty of trying to close down debate”

          Rubbish. He addressed a point that Nick made. It seems you and your buddy are very very defensive all of a sudden. Play the point, not the man. I’d like to know what Nick meant about “other marginalised identities” as well.

          If he’s not doing a Sean plunket or mike Hisking on us, just say so. Are you both pimping for white supremacists or not?? Simple fucking question.

          • Actually a moronic question. Not really a question at all, more of a provocative bit of virtue signalling. What I hear from you is “I’m so bloody pure and wonderful that anything I think and believe is self evidently true, but that allows me to accuse anybody of being untermenschen if I so desire”. Pure narcissism. Have you not considered that an excrable Aussie also believed he was completely right, all I’m asking is not to jump to conclusions, to be cautious and question. That obviously makes me alt Right.

            • Nick, now you’re making persionalised attacks on Mjolnir?

              Are you unable to defend your point of view with personalising this issue? That indicates your position is untenable and indefensible.

              The questions I put to you are fairly basic: do you endorse White Supremacy or not? If I’ve mis-read your original comment on this issue, please say so. Your avoidance of an answer leads to an inescapable conclusion.

              As does your rejection of the (alleged) terrorist as a white supremacist – opting instead to re-define the narrative that he is a “narcissist”. He may be a narcissist. But he’s also a white supremacist. His so-called “manifesto” spelling out his desire for a race war and to “purify” Europe and NATO spells that out clearly. His covert hand signal in the Courtroom witness box is a White Supremacist hand-sign.

              It beggars belief and raises questions as to what motivates you to attempt to re-define the narrative in this way. It’s almost as if you are attempting to “sanitise” the event by using American-style definitions:

              1. If the mass-shooter is an Islamist, he’s labelled a terrorist.

              2. If he’s not, then the mass-shooter is “mentally disturbed”.

              Either way, the narrative is deflected away from gun control and US policy in the Middle East.

              • Frank if you read your comments it is you and your associate who have flowed invective my way, I’m a implied to be a white supremacist sympathiser. My comment above refers to a moronic question and I imply that the person who put it is virtue signalling narcissistically. Yes I answered brutal personalised accusations that are very offensive in a front on manner. Play the man it’s what you get.

                At no point in my comments do I reject that the shooter is a white supremacists, nor do I draw or reject any longer straws you draw. You really do need to learn to read, think, consider. And you need to stop getting personal based upon assumptions.

              • Yeah right on, totally agree. Don’t deflect from describing what white supremacists are: a terrorist group with a religious doctrine, albeit not a very intelligent one. Innocent NZers with guns need to rethink their relationship with guns, this seems to be where a lot of defensive rhetoric is coming from. Guns kill, semiautomatic kill lots, just because you are law abiding and reasonable gun owner doesn’t cut the mustard the writing is on the wall and gun laws will and have to change. If you have a semi give it up and be glad to! Otherwise you are a scary asshole. The gun law changes in Oz are the litmus test of a successful policy and we must do the same.
                It is also interesting and important to delve into why people become fanatics. The shooter was only 28, he became radical somehow, apparently quite quickly. Also the way he was financed or financing himself is unusual, and the way he killed people like he was the terminator or like he was playing a video game is very disturbing. His humanity clearly on hold what did that to him?

                • “Don’t deflect from describing what white supremacists are: a terrorist group with a religious doctrine, albeit not a very intelligent one. ”

                  Nailed it 100%

          • What a cheek. Why so hostile? I’ve no idea who Nick is, nor his posting history. So, I am a white-supremacist apologist? I think this is absolutely outrageous and I am only commenting here to point out that New Zealand society is not “whiter than white” (sorry about the pun) when it comes to racism, institutional and personal, and that a hysterical witch-hunts such is happening on this site and thread lead nowhere. I can’t stand the hypocrisy and self-regarding that prevails here. The Christchurch assassin didn’t appear out of nowhere even though he has the ultimate responsibility for his appalling act.

    • Who are they? Have you ever met one? Well, to the first, they are not just people whose jobs have been offshored, but often relatively educated people whose world view is like Trump’s – as their manifesto acknowledges – and who are good at using social media to advance those views.
      Have I ever met one? Yes. Neighbours of a friend of mine are exactly those people. She was a publicist for Pauline Hanson. My friend is afraid of them. They are smart and organised.
      People whose livelihoods have been threatened by the neo-liberal agenda may grumble and can be very racist, but survival is their main objective. You are right that we need to address the causes of local inequality. WE also need to address the causes of global instability and acknowledge our country’s part in them.

      • You are right Janine, our country and our associations seem to me deeply compromised. We are very intertwined with and beholdent to the “empire”. How we break lose who knows? I do know that we marched enmasse in 1981 to send a message, today I don’t see we have critical mass or commitment to do this. I hope I’m wrong.

  5. Well done Keith, great piece, overdue but finally its out there. Perhaps if now Western politicians can actually be held accountable for their murderous rampages throughout the world, disguised as the R2P doctrine, we will begin to get somewhere.

  6. Keith what you are talking about is removing or countering the causes of Islamophobia or other demonisation of groups, and withdrawing from wars and warlike activity.

    Plain common sense ignored by all NZ govts.

    It was not only followers of Islam who have been rejected as fellow human beings but the yellow peril, the Vietnamese, Koreans, Turks, Russians, Boers, atheists, pacifists, LGBTs and many others.

    The wealthy power players who seem to have a problem with universal humanity, don’t want peace among humankind but manipulate and divide populations using fear, faux patriotism, half truths, outright lies, false flag events, character assassination, religion, control of news and media, coining of terms such a radicalised, antisemitism, leftist and any name that can be coined by PR firms who work for them in controlling public opinion.

    In the 20th century many million were slaughtered and many more millions left with damaged bodies minds and communities though deliberately manufactured wars. After a war has passed the history is written by the victorious in a version that suits their agenda. The glorious dead is a myth we are encouraged to subscribe to.

    It is not the person in the street nor the mother or father of families who want war but they bear the consequences with families paying dearly in many ways for the viscous unconcienced power play between marauding fractions stealing land, resources or other prizes to increase their peronal wealth.

    Until we have a more open education system teaching both young and old about critical thinking, then there will be insufficient understanding in the community to counter the manipulation we suffer under.

    NZ is quick to jump into wars lead by the UK and now the USA.

    john key moved us into NATO without any public discussion or mandate from the people to do so, and yet there was no outcry from the harnessed MSM. Manipulation from the top but acting for who, not NZ.

    Them and us, fear and anxiety, retribution and greed are all used in a dangerous distortion of the universal values held by most people of the world.

    Those things have to be recognised

  7. As the grief settles and the fifty dead New Zealanders are laid to rest, it is time to act so the chances of this ever happening again are reduced.

    At the very least:

    1.Royal commission into why our security services failed us. We’ve passed umpteen laws increasing surveillance; doubled and trebled spy agency budgets since 2008. But they still failed us.

    Real questions need to be asked.

    And resignations made.

    2.Ban all semi-automatic weapons – these killing machines are not needed in private hands.

    3.Stop visiting alt-right “missionaries” from overseas. Coming to our country is not some inalienable right.We don’t need them. The consequences when someone acts on their toxic ideology has been shown to be deadly.

    We don’t allow ISIS, Al Qaeda, et al, to come here. So why do we allow other extremists to visit?

    These are a start. This is not a “knee jerk”. If we don’t review and act now, we’ll never do it.

    • How do you define who qualifies as “alt-right “missionaries”?

      Southern and Molyneux may have unpleasant views to you but they aren’t advocating anything illegal or promoting violence.

      Even if we agree that they qualify what about people like Jordan Perterson or Bill Maher?

      How about Maajid Nawaz, a moderate British Muslim, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali who have both been labelled promoters of hate speech by the Southern Poverty Law Center for their views on Islamist groups?

      • If we can ban ISIS, Al Qaeda, et al, operatives from coming to New Zealand, Gosman, it should not be beyond our abilities to do the same for rightwing extremists. Or do we identify only Islamist extremists for terror lists?

        • People who belong to ISIS or Al Qaida (or who support them) can be banned because those organisations promote illegal violent acts (You know like bombing civilian targets in Western nations). None of the people that you want to additionally ban from coming here have ever advocated such act as far as I am aware. Then all you have to do so is your OPINION their views may encourage people to carry out such acts. At which point it becomes incredibly difficult to determine what people get banned and which don’t because proving someone’s ideas are “dangerous” if they are not overtly calling for illegal actions is fraught with problems and open for abuse.

          • People who belong to ISIS or Al Qaida (or who support them) can be banned because those organisations promote illegal violent acts (You know like bombing civilian targets in Western nations)

            Like Anders Breivik? Timothy McVeigh? Et al?


            None of the people that you want to additionally ban from coming here have ever advocated such act as far as I am aware

            That’s naive, Gosman. The Polite Fascists simply provide the motivation for those that then act on far right ideology. One is no better than the other.

            • You keep ignoring the fundamental issue behind your view.

              You have called the people you want banned “Fascist” but none of them belong to a political party OR organisation that identifies itself as Fascist. At which point you need to define what they are doing that qualifies as “Fascist”. This is what is incredibly difficult to do.

              Here is a shore list of people that I want you to let me know if they qualify as “Fascist” or not.

              Don Brash
              Donald Trump
              Stefan Molyneux
              Lauren Southern
              Jordan Peterson
              Viktor Orbán (Prime Minister of Hungary)
              Ben Shapiro (Conservative US political commentator)
              Bill Maher (Liberal anti-Islamist talk show host)
              Maajid Nawaz (Director of anti Islamist foundation)
              Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Ex Muslim anti extremist)

              • Nearly all of them qualify, Gosman.

                Certainly Southern and Molyneux. Add Trump , Brash, and Orban.

                You keep strange bedfellows if you don’t see the underlying fascism in those individuals.

                • Maajid Nawaz was recently a victim of a violent racist attack. He started Quilliam, an interfaith group trying to promote mutual respect and understanding.

                  Yet the SPLC has labelled his work as “hate speech”

                  Why?

                  • Actually, Andy, you’ve (again) mis-represented that situation.

                    The Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) recently recanted their criticism of Nawaz and offered a full apology:

                    Today, we entered into a settlement with and offered our sincerest apology to Mr. Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for including them in our publication A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Given our understanding of the views of Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam, it was our opinion at the time that the Field Guide was published that their inclusion was warranted. But after getting a deeper understanding of their views and after hearing from others for whom we have great respect, we realize that we were simply wrong to have included Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam in the Field Guide in the first place.

                    Among those who contacted us were human rights advocates affiliated with the United Nations who emphasized that Mr. Nawaz’s work combatting extremism “is actually analogous to that of the SPLC over the years in the South.” Indeed, one of the reasons Mr. Nawaz has said that he was so troubled by our listing was the fact that he had respected our work for many years. Although we may have our differences with some of the positions that Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have taken, we recognize that they have made important contributions to efforts to promote pluralism and that they are most certainly not anti-Muslim extremists.

                    ref: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation

                    So your criticism in unfounded. A mistake was made. It was corrected. An apology offered.

                    What more would you want?

                    And more importantly, did you not know the outcome when you quoted the Nawaz case?

                    • Thanks for filling me in Frank, I wasn’t aware of the SPLC statement.

                      However, I ‘m still concerned that moderate voices are being shut out in the clamour for censorship

                    • I hope you too, Andy and Gosman can agree that when America had there 9/11 and overreacted they ended up wasting trillions taking their national debt from something like $10 trillion to $20.

                      This is me saying let’s not overreact. People can overreach but we will not over spend and overreact on pseudo intellectual conventions with Breton Tarrant.

              • You’re a seasoned political commentator Gosman. Advisers should be warning National / ACT candidates of running off the rails by bashing Jacinda instead of developing sober policies New Zealanders can actually support post March 2019.

                  • I’m actually very sorry to you that I missed characterised you as a “seasoned political commentator” and I’d like to take the opportunity right now to take it back. You’re burst on the outside and raw in the middle.

                    That said the National Party won’t admit to nurturing white supremacy under the leadership of Don Brash but they did create the false ideology of Māori privilege ending with the rascist sea bed and foreshore act and other funding cuts to poor brown areas.

                    Undoing the knitting of Don Brash racist policy agenda will be this governments pleasure.

              • “You have called the people you want banned “Fascist” but none of them belong to a political party OR organisation that identifies itself as Fascist. At which point you need to define what they are doing that qualifies as “Fascist”. This is what is incredibly difficult to do.”

                So let me get this straight, if a supporter of Al Queada or ISIS wants to come to NZ, thats ok as long as they aren’t a member?

                Fuck me, thats a pretty low bar if thats your criteria

                • No, if you are a supporter of such organisations you should also be restricted. Now are any of the people mentioned supporters or organisations that have a similar idea as ISIS or Al Qaida?

              • Gosman there is a lot of White Trash in NZ Brash is just one of many. He is just a frustrated old white Exclusive Bretheran IMHO

                  • It appears that your definition of fascism is very, very narrow, Gosman. Fascists are not just German Nazi and Italians in leather boots, goose-stepping whilst their Glorious Leaders (note: heavy sarc) look on apprivingly.

                    Some fascists, like Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux are what I call Polite Fascists. You could invite them to a gathering of the Ponsonby Ladies’ Auxiliary (not that they’d attend) and come away thinking “what a nice pair”.

                    But their pseudo-intellectualisation and warm smiles (shades of the ‘Smiling Assassin’!) is just fascism cloaked in socially acceptable attire.

                    Brash may not be a goose-stepping, card-carrying, black leather-clad Nazi (though how he dresses in the privacy of his own bedroom is his business and not something to contemplate after just eating dinner), but his racism and mono-culturalism certainly doesn’t mark him out to be any sort of ‘progressive’.

            • Frank, do your ideological Leftist sunglasses allow you to recognize that Stalin, Mao and Political Pot were Leftists who personally ordered the death of millions? Or that Islamic Jihadists kill in the name of their faith? Do you wish to associate with them? Are they, are you polite apologists for their inherent evil?

              Just because some self professed idiot described himself as a Rightist is the Left any less culpable and inclined to extreme violence in the name of it’s doctrine? Or because the US military industrial complex exists to make killing devices at a profit, meaning people get killed we should blame all American rust belt white men?

              You begin to remind me of Joe MacCarthy, or maybe St Just, convinced of your ideological purity. Your way or the highway. At a time when we need unity. Listen to yourself, learn some introspection.

              Jeez Frank that’s twice today you’ve brought me to the support of Bridges and Gos who are definitely not my friends. Where did you get such deep seated bile?

      • “Southern and Molyneux may have unpleasant views to you but they aren’t advocating anything illegal or promoting violence.”

        Don’t sell us that crsp Gosman. They may not directly advocate violence , they’re too clever for that. They just provide the pseudo intellectual justification for others to act on. Remember Southern’s question to journo here in NZ? She asked the journo,

        “Are you proud to be white?”

        It was the first thing to come out of her mouth.

        (The journo replied, “I’m Maori.”)

        That non-plussed Southern for a moment.
        They may not be throwing the bombs of hatred, but they’re encouraging the bomb-throwers.

  8. Excellent, absolutely excellent Keith.

    And it also does not help that our deputy Prime Minister just two years ago gave inspiration to the type of ideas that drive Islamaphobia and hatred against migrants of colour in general. The fact that he showed his face at the mosque with other political leaders on Saturday was stomach churning.

    From an article linked in the NZ herald today;

    Firstly, a group calling itself the Auckland University European Students Association appeared on campus at Orientation Week. Although it quickly disbanded amid accusations of racism and threats to its (unidentified) founders, the group gained national media coverage, including reaction from Race Relations Commissioner Susan Devoy.

    Secondly, a week later, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters visited Victoria University in Wellington. During his speech to students he questioned the media’s role in causing the “European” group to shut down. He accused journalists of suppressing dissenting voices, and on his way out, unashamedly signed a cartoon of a frog named Pepe – the most popular symbol of the alt-right.

    Peters’ actions set the New Zealand 4Chan boards alight.

    “Guess who just got my vote!!” one user wrote. “Winston is based”. (Based, loosely, means good).

    “Absolutely BASED,” said another. “Winnie has my undying respect.”

    “Winston is /ourguy/, right?” another asked. “I want someone to get rid of the Indians and Chinese, those f****** are stealing our country right out from under us.”

    That’s so fucking dog whistling it really isn’t, he may as well have got out the megaphone

    • Good grief. Someone photo shops Winnie’s hair onto a cartoon of a frog some loons like (along with gazillions of other, normal kids), proffers it to Winston for an autograph. He signs it…..ergo…..Winston (a member of one of Northland’s most educated and distinguished Maori families)……. encourages said loons.

      See how these things get started?

      Go take a long look in the mirror and repeat “I am a dick” until sanity returns.

      • He fucking knew exactly what he was doing and the fact that it was an alt-right meme and if he didn’t know he was completely fucking ignorant.

        The fact is Winston is a brown white supremacist, prattling on about ‘Western civilization’ last week, and supporting a European Students Association club (an alt-right white nationalist outfit).

        His diatribes against Muslims and Chinese over the past two decades is known to anyone who does not live under a rock.

        So go fuck yourself, you dork.

        • There you go folks. You’ve got to admit I’ve got a good nose for the unhinged.
          “He fucking knew exactly what he was doing” (a mind reader no less)
          “and if he didn’t know” (or maybe not).
          In the real World I happen to know Winston is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and, if anything a little too close to the Chinese.
          Post a link to a diatribe against either big fella. Let’s see what you’ve got.

            • I wonder if you are on the same page as me.
              I have often asked the question, could the Taiwan DNA detected within the Maori genome be an admixture, a later addition which, like the Chinese Bell, possibly brought to Aotearoa by Zheng He. I have never received an answer.

  9. I’m quite happy to label myself Islamophobic.

    It is a stand against aspects of an ideology, not the people who practise it. The later might or should better be termed muslimophopia, something I reject.

    I stand for the values of the enlightenment and reason. I reject cultural and religious persecution and murder of the LGBT community, of atheists, of blasphemers and apostates. I reject the subjugation of women, violent punishments for adultery, theft and religious trangression.

    • I can say with certainty that your knowledge of Islam is minimal at best and drawn from dubious sources at least. Sources that are incapable of distinguishing a Shiite from a sh*thead. Were they to apply the same myopia to Christianity they would be unable to tell the Jim Jones cult from the Salvation army.

        • Living in a Moslem country and actually trying to absorb the mind-set helps. Years of inquiry.
          Incidentally, my comment was in reply to Richard Christie. If I remember correctly, you are reasonably well versed in the subject.

          • You’ve lived in a Muslim country then? I presume you mean Muslim majority country rather than Muslim country because no country is Muslim. Can you tell me if this Muslim country had laws against people proslytising to Muslim citizens and if so why?

              • None of those countries are Muslim. They do have a majority of their citzens being Muslim. Is that what yoy mean?

            • One delightful spot is Kota Kinabalu. There is a Christian Church, a Mosque and a synagogue – sharing the same car-park.
              How do you reckon you’d make out door knocking for Islam in this country? The U.S. ?
              Thing is, true Moslems don’t proselytize. I’m only guessing here but if there are states where it is forbidden to proselytize, the rule would apply to all. A cultural thing.

              • It isn’t a cultural thing. It only applies to non-Muslims proselytising Malays (Who are officially ALL regarded as Muslim by default).

                • I think it is more nuanced than that. My understanding is that overt proselytizing is haram. The acolyte must first ask or exhibit an interest. Cold calling is not Islamic. Again I say it is cultural – simply good manners that fundamentalist Christians do not observe. Such laws exist for the same reason Western Laws prohibit the flashing of one’s genitals in public.
                  Interestingly, I spent a morning with a quite renowned Imam because of this particular edict. Simply because I asked, I got an interview with Sheik Imran Hosein. I learned later that if a non-believer asks for information, it is haram to refuse.
                  Mate. It has been good to touch base with you again but this format is difficult. Tell Bomber to move to Disqus or somesuch. Moderation should be done retrospectively – I’m still waiting for several posts to appear after about 8 hours.

                • I think it is more nuanced than that. My understanding is that overt proselytizing is haram. The acolyte must first ask or exhibit an interest. Cold calling is not Islamic. Again I say it is cultural – simply good manners that fundamentalist Christians do not observe. Such laws exist for the same reason Western Laws prohibit the flashing of one’s genitals in public.
                  Interestingly, I spent a morning with a quite renowned Imam because of this particular edict. Simply because I asked, I got an interview with Sheik Imran Hosein. I learned later that if a non-believer asks for information, it is haram to refuse.
                  Mate. It has been good to touch base with you again but this format is difficult. Tell Bomber to move to Disqus or somesuch. Moderation should be done retrospectively – I’m still waiting for several posts to appear after about 8 hours.

                  • Your understanding is wrong. Muslim proselytising to non-Muslims is not Haram. It is only the other way around.

                    • You are correct Gosman and Brewer is wrong. If Brewer has knowledge of Islam as he states then he would have mentioned Dawa which is proselytising to non Muslims. Dawa is also used to strengthen the faith of Muslims. Dawa is done openly in western towns and cities. Non Muslims are not converts to Islam; they’re reverts because according to Islam everyone is born a Muslim. There is another method of proselytising in Islam besides Dawa which everyone has obviously heard of – Jihad!

                    • Ahem. Seems like we got some trueeeeeeeeee believers.

                      It all boils down to oversimplification: my religion is set apart from others because of the fact that I believe in it.

                      Someone who believes their religion is the one true religion will invariably believe that mine is a fairy tale, if the basic presets are significantly different. That’s what literally sets theirs apart from mine, and vice versa.

                      +72 waifus in heaven

                    • @Jason.
                      It is, as I said, more nuanced.
                      Neither I nor anyone of my acquaintance has ever been door-knocked or enjoined to embrace the faith.
                      Dawa can be considered proselytizing only if setting an example, doing good works, creating charitable institutions is proselytizing.
                      I guess it comes down to two senses of the word – passive and active.
                      As with all belief systems, arguments focusing on texts etc can be misleading.The real test is how the doctrines are practiced in the real World. If anyone can provide examples of activity by Moslems that aligns with that of fundamentalist sects like Jehovah’s Witnesses, LDS etc. (minor sects within Islam excepted) I would be interested to see them.

    • Agree Richard Christie 100%. Disagree Keith Locke. It seems Keith thinks we white people are thought governed by our old links from the olden days. That’s insulting and damn inaccurate as hell. I judge people by what they do, not what they say and certainly not history. I don’t like the way they treat there women, is one thing, this is not promoting hate, is it?

  10. It seems the western world in general has a major problem here to deal with white supremacy.
    The conflict with Islam is defining the 21st century as a major ongoing struggle that has now reached here.
    9/11 and all that has followed is now in NZ and become a harsh reality that we are not immune to world pressures and danger.
    We should start with education and make sure this generation are taught the dangers of these groups and how the message can spread.
    It is time for more than just platitudes and the media has a major role to play including teachers and parents.
    https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/03/16/we-need-to-talk-about-bbc-newsnights-coverage-of-the-new-zealand-massacre-its-not-okay/

  11. Islam has been at war with the Christian world for many centuries. The last caliphate was the Ottoman Empire which was defeated in WW1

    In recent times, there hasn’t been a visible conflict with Islam and the West until the events of Sept 11 2001

    Examine these events in detail. Examine the agenda of the “Project for a New American Century” Look at Corbett Report.

    I am very much against “conspiracy theories” but 9/11 stands out in so many ways. Please don’t dismiss me as a loon.

    I spend 15+ years coming to terms with this, and it has completely recalibrated my world view

    • “Islam has been at war with the Christian world for many centuries”
      A common misperception. If you have some evidence of it I would be most interested to see it.

        • Gidday Gosman. Long time no see. You seem to be the last of the old Tumeke crowd here. I’ve been out of it for some time – overseas and a spell of ill health.
          I can’t say I am well up on Tours. What was it you wanted to point out in this context?

      • Brewer, suggest you read a few of the more recent popular histories. The Silk Road is a good start, the conflict between Europe and the Near East and their respective political and religious affiliations goes back several millennia. It is a constant, it comes in many forms. We may think it past, that is to downplay the serious interchange that has benefitted both sides.

      • I would suggest reading Sword and the Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West by Raymond Ibrahim. There is also Islamic Imperialism by Professor Efraim Karsh but Sword and Scimitar is better.

        • Both writers (Ibrahim and Karsh) are fully paid up Neo-Cons.
          This from Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst:
          “The recent article by Raymond Ibrahim is in this author’s opinion well-researched, factual in places but whose interpretation of taqiyya is ultimately misleading. It focuses on a very narrow use of the term taqiyya, which is sometimes used to refer to dissimulation allowed to Shias to preserve their own lives and the lives of others. It appears to be a polemical piece interspersed with cherry-picked citations from the Quran, the sayings of the Prophet and secondary works.”
          Karsh is an ex-IDF officer, a member of Benidor Associates – the outfit that put it about that Irian Jewa have to wear yellow stars.
          Neither are near the top of my large reading list.

          • Brewer – There is no reply box for your other post so I’ll reply to it here and post a separate reply for this post. Dawa isn’t more nuanced – Dawa is proselytising to non Muslims and strengthening the faith of Muslims. These are facts.

            Muslims don’t door knock like Jehovah Witnesses and LDS but they do set up stalls in towns/cities and call people to Islam. They hand out pamphlets, booklets and small paperback versions of the Quran. It is active proselytising. Here are two examples:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJdstQFgoaU
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMkM-hz6Cpg

            Every Muslim country ruled under Islamic Law (Sharia) is the real test for you in the real World. Death for: apostasy, being gay, blasphemy and adultery. Other barbaric punishments such as lashings and amputation of limbs. Child marriage including paedophile marriage of men to young prepubescent little girls, punishment for females not wearing Islamic clothing or not wearing it correctly, polygamy, first cousin marriage, and women treated like 2nd class citizens. Widespread terrorism in the name of Islam. The above is far more extreme than anything Jehovah Witnesses or LDS do.

            • Jason, what is the point of your screeds of comments? Are you trying to make some quasi-intellectuallised point against Muslims?

              If you are, this is wholly inappropriate.

              • Frank, I started off by replying to this article which is full of anti white racist hatred and false information about Islam. This article is playing into the terrorist’s and Islamists’ agenda. It will worsen the situation and not help heal the wounds from an evil terrorist attack against Muslims. That is exactly what the terrorist wants to happen. I am supported in this by the Muslim reformer, Maajid Nawas.
                https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-new-zealand-mosque-massacre-blame-game-is-out-of-control

                Others have replied to my post so I have replied to them. It’s as simple as that.

            • On the surface, you make some good points but where the error becomes obvious is in these phrases:
              “Muslims don’t…” and “Every Muslim country”.
              This requires a leap from the particular to the general.
              One might just as well assert that the practices of the Jim Jones cult or Snake Handlers typify Christianity.
              The first video does not support your case. Among the first words spoken by the interviewer are : “you asked for a copy of the Koran Terry, is that right?”
              This would seem to align with my interpretation of Dawa – perfectly permissible when the acolyte exhibits an interest or asks for information.
              In my view, handing out leaflets at a bus stop would probably not be considered proper by the vast majority of Moslems but that would not preclude such behavior by an individual group – just as some sects within Christianity are at odds with the mainstream on that issue.
              There is also a possibility that those pamphleteers are not proselytizing, that the pamphlets are designed simply to explain Islam, to counter the widespread misconceptions. That would be Dawa but not proselytizing as such.
              So how numerous are those nations where Sharia plays a bigger role in Government that, say Canon or Judaic law?
              According to this map, sharia plays no role in the judicial system of the majority. The second largest group is where sharia applies in personal status issues (such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody) – rather like Canon Law in Christian countries.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Islamic_law_by_country#/media/File:Use_of_Sharia_by_country.svg
              When we look at those that do incorporate Sharia to a great extent we find they are predominantly Salafist or Wahabist. This is a minority sect that is considered un-Islamic by the majority. In Saudi Arabia’s case, its relatively recent emergence can be traced to when when Mohammad bin Saud, the chieftain of a local tribe formed a pact with an Islamic fundamentalist in order to consolidate power. In this he was backed by Western powers in order to undermine the Ottomans.. This video by Adam Curtis is instructive:
              https://youtu.be/VRbq63r7rys

              • Brewer, I wasn’t going to reply to your comment as my emotions are still locked into the mosque massacres. However, I see Islamist propaganda in your comment in the Salafist – Wahhabism part, so for the sake of Muslims and non Muslims; I do need to expose it.

                I will do this in reverse, answering the last part of your comment first.

                You said: “When we look at those that do incorporate Sharia to a great extent we find they are predominantly Salafist or Wahabist. This is a minority sect that is considered un-Islamic by the majority”.

                There are four main Schools of Sunni Sharia: Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafi’i. All of them are deeply fundamentalist and their laws were written many centuries before Mohammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab was born. All of them had offensive jihad to spread Islam written into their version of Sharia. And, it is still there today. Saudi Arabia follows the Hanbali School of Sharia. If you look at the list below of the countries that have Sharia to a “great extent” where it covers family and criminal laws, only Saudi Arabia follows the Hanbali School of Sharia. All of the other countries follow other Schools of Sunni Sharia and there are two Schools of Shia Sharia. These are not minority sects; they are mainstream Islam:

                Afghanistan – Hanafi
                Brunei – Shafi’i
                Comoros – Shafi’i
                Gaza – Hanafi
                Iran – Ja’fari (Shia)
                Iraq – Ja’fari (Shia) and Hanafi
                Kuwait – Maliki and Ja’fari (Shia)
                Libya – Maliki
                Mauritania- Maliki
                Morocco – Maliki
                Oman – Ibadi (not part of Sunni or Shia Schools of Sharia)
                Pakistan – Hanafi
                Saudi Arabia – Hanbali
                Sudan – Maliki
                Yemen – Shafi’i and Zaydi (Shia)

                Others:
                Indonesia (Aceh) – Shafi’i
                Nigeria (North) – Maliki
                Algeria (Sharia Blasphemy Laws) – Maliki
                Djibouti (Gays criminalised) – Shafi’i
                Egypt (Sharia potentially overrules secular laws and the Justice Minister is pushing for it to do so) – Hanafi

                I’ve discussed the issue of Salafi Wahhabism many times. Non Muslims and Muslims are being fed Islamist propaganda. Muslims always blame everything that is bad in Islam on Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia. And, they always include western powers part in it so it isn’t the fault of Muslims but those evil white colonials again. It is pure Islamist propaganda. The Ottoman Caliphate like all the other “official” Caliphates before them was as brutal as ISIS. They committed the Armenian Genocide in 1915 where they killed 1.5 million Armenian Christian men, women and children. So the Ottoman Caliphate if it had survived would be as bad as anything Wahhabism would later throw up.

                There was nearly 1,000 years of Islamic history before Mohammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab was born. It was continuous jihad to spread Islam with mass slaughter, genocide and forced conversions wherever Islam went. The massive Muslim empire stretched from Europe, the Middle East, N Africa and Asia to India. All this was done without Salafi Wahhabism. Wahhabis are Salafists but not all Salafists are Wahhabis. Salafi Muslims advocate a return to the traditions of the Salaf, the first three generations of Muslims. Whilst Wahhabism is scorned by Islamic scholars, their own brands of Islam are just as bad.

                Your video showed that over more recent decades, Saudi oil money has had a large influence on the Deobandi movement in Pakistan and Islamic terrorist groups such as the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Deobandi movement was as fundamentalist as Wahhabism long before Saudi oil money was thrown at it. This is because the inspiration for both the founder of the Deobandi movement (Shah Wali Ullah) and the founder of Wahhabism (Mohammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab) was the Indian Muslim scholar, Ibn Taymiyyah!

                The Deobandi movement is massive and is active in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. It takes its name from the town of Deoband in India where the first school was set up called Darul Uloom which means House of Knowledge. A Darul Uloom is a higher centre of study than a madrassa and meant for older children much like a high school. Most of the mosques in Britain are Deobandi. Darul Uloom high schools are very popular in the UK.

              • The map you posted is linked to a list of countries.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title%3DSharia&oldid=539023303#Application_by_country

                With the exception of Turkey, most if not all of the countries where Sharia doesn’t apply were former European colonies, former parts of the USSR (communism) and former Yugoslavia (communism). Therefore, European colonisation has helped to remove Islamic fundamentalism in many Muslim countries. Turkey under Erdogan is becoming more Islamic and has said Sharia and Islam are joined at the hip. About one in five marriages are child marriages and human rights organisations are concerned this will increase because of the 2017 Mufti Law for marriage where Sharia courts alone can be used for marriage registration. In January 2018, Turkey’s highest religious body (Diyanet) suggested children as young as 9 could marry under Islamic law. The reason for this age for girls to marry will be explained below.

                The UN classes child marriage as under age 18. As several western countries allow marriage down to age 16 with parental consent, I only quote UN figures or other organisation’s figures when they are very high in a Muslim country.

                The next two groups cover countries where Sharia personal status laws only apply. There are many mistakes in this list with eight countries having full Sharia which includes criminal law. Personal status law is Islamic Family Law. There is no minimum age of marriage in Islamic Law (Sharia) and this is often stated in a country’s Islamic Family Law. Polygamy, 1st cousin marriage and unfair treatment of women apply in Islamic Family Law. A woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s. Child marriage including paedophile marriage of men to young prepubescent little girls is prevalent in many Muslim countries either directly through Sharia or indirectly through Sharia loopholes.

                I use Islamic Family Law by Dr An-Na’im, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at the Emory School of Law for each country, the sources from the Wikipedia article titled Marriageable age by Country and internet articles on each country to ensure my evidence is current. However, I will keep this very brief but can expand on it greatly using the above references if you want.

                Child marriage is prevalent in many Muslim countries because Prophet Mohamed married Aisha when she was 6 years old and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old; he was 54. The health risks for girls who have sex at low ages are very severe. Death from internal bleeding on their wedding night, dying during pregnancy and dying during child birth because their bodies aren’t developed enough is all too common. Polygamous marriage causes large societal problems. 1st cousin marriage is very prevalent in Muslim countries because Prophet Mohamed married his 1st cousin. It greatly increases the risk of serious birth defects in babies. Most Muslims in the UK are of Pakistani descent. British women of Pakistani descent account for 3% of births but 30% of babies born with serious birth defects in the UK.

                It is much easier for the husband to obtain a divorce than the wife. In inheritance, a son’s share is double that of a daughter’s but I believe that is the same under Jewish Law. Women who remarry “could” lose custody of their children under Islamic Family Law.

                The following Muslim countries have paedophile marriage involving prepubescent little girls marrying men or child marriage down to borderline puberty for girls marrying men. There is a mistake in Wikipedia for Saudi Arabia. By population, it involves the majority of the Muslim world. Several of the countries have Sharia loopholes that override statutory laws for marriage because of Prophet Mohamed’s example in marriage to his child bride, Aisha. I can provide evidence for all of them:
                Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Lebanon (Muslims only), Bangladesh, Bahrain, Brunei (Muslims only), Egypt, Qatar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Senegal, Somalia, Niger, Sudan, Malaysia (Muslims only), and Syria.

                This is an example of how hard it is for Muslim countries to raise the age of marriage for girls. Bangladesh banned adult-child marriage but put in place a Sharia loophole allowing it to be retained. They were likely persuaded by Bangladeshi Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini who said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage. The Mufti said “banning child marriage would challenge the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam”.
                http://www.independentsentinel.com/horrors-of-child-marriage/

                Nigeria has a massive child marriage problem in the Muslim north of the country with the largest number of child brides in Africa, according to the U.N. Children’s Fund. Iraq proposed a law to lower the minimum age to 9 for girls to marry which was fortunately thrown out. The age of 9 is relevant for obvious reasons. In Gambia child marriage is booming because their president who banned it was forced into exile.

                UNICEF reports that 1,408,000 Indonesian women aged 20 to 24 were married before the age of 18 and 50,000 girls under the age of 15 still marry in Indonesia each year. According to a report from BMC Public Health, complications during childbirth and pregnancy are one of the leading causes of death among adolescent girls in Indonesia.
                According to UNICEF, 57% of marriages in Afghanistan involve girls under 16 years of age and approximately 40% of the marriages were agreed when the bride was 10-13 years old. According to two 2013 reports, nearly 50% of all marriages in Pakistan involve girls less than 18 years old. This would equate to 45 million women. The New York Times states: “Many girls are married off by their families as soon as or even shortly before they have reached puberty in their early teens. One of every 70 dies each year because of early pregnancy, not enough time between pregnancies, and other risks of teenage pregnancy”. The Dubai based Step Feed journal reports that Child marriage in Morocco is still prevalent, with over 100,000 minors reported to have been married off as of 2014. World Vision reports for Senegal “child marriage has become a widespread phenomenon. Each year, millions of girls are married, sometimes even before they reach the age of 15. Nearly one in three girls is married before their 18th birthday and have already had pregnancies. Thus, Senegal has a national prevalence rate of 33%”. Malaysian activists have called for law reform to end child marriage, which they said was widespread among the country’s Muslim population. Some 16,000 Malaysian Muslim girls below the age of 15 are already married.

                CHRISTIAN CANON LAW
                The basis for the current civil and common laws in England and European countries was Christian Canon Law. I can only find the Catholic Church’s Canon laws on marriage. A female has to be at least 14 years of age under Catholic Canon Law to be married which means that she will be past puberty because puberty (menarche) normally occurs between the ages of 12 to 13. It is not good but it is far better than prepubescent child marriage or borderline puberty child marriage under Islamic Family Law. In Canon 1083/2, the minimum age of marriage is raised to recognize the legal age of marriage in a Catholic bishop’s country. Therefore, if the minimum age of marriage is say 18 in a country, Canon Law complies with that country’s laws so there can be no Canon Law loopholes like under Islamic Family Law.
                http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Y.HTM

                A good example of the use of Canon 1083/2 is the Philippines which is devotedly Catholic and also a very poor country. The Catholic Church there complies with the marriage laws of the Philippines which is minimum age of marriage 21 years of age and 18 years of age with parental consent.
                http://weddingsinthephilippines.com/government-and-catholic-church-requirements-for-getting-married-in-the-philippines/

                Unlike in Muslim countries under Islamic Family Law where there is the large barrier to overcome of the obligation to follow the example of Prophet Mohamed in his marriage to his child bride Aisha, there is no such barrier in Christian Canon Law.

                Polygamy and 1st cousin marriage are illegal in Christian Canon Law. With the exception of the Catholic Church not allowing the ordination of female priests, there is gender equality in Christian Canon Law.

                From the above, Islamic Family Law is nothing like Christian Cannon Law so it is completely wrong for you to say “The second largest group is where sharia applies in personal status issues (such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody) – rather like Canon Law in Christian countries”.

              • Brewer, I said “Every Muslim country ruled under Islamic Law (Sharia)”. This indicates any Muslim country where Sharia is the only form of law or is a substantial part of the law or is Islamic Family Law.

                You said: The first video does not support your case. Among the first words spoken by the interviewer are : “you asked for a copy of the Koran Terry, is that right?”

                The Muslim proselytising has a microphone with a PA system and a cameraman is filming the event. The Dawa is taking place in a busy main North London Street. Where did that copy of the Quran come from? Did he just magic it up from somewhere? The organisation filming the event is called “Dawah Made Easy”. If you click on that under the video you’ll see several training videos on how to do Dawah including: “To see the technique in action please see our ‘Live Street Videos” AND “How to invite Christians to Islam” which obviously denotes actions on the part of the Muslim proselytisers.

                I couldn’t fail to notice that you didn’t mention the 2nd video titled “Beautiful Dawa in England”. That shows: Muslims handing out leaflets in central London close to Big Ben, teams of Muslims going to main areas of central London with stacks of paperback Qurans, a Muslim on a step ladder in what looks like Speakers Corner preaching the Quran backed up with a team handing out paperback Qurans.

                Both videos support my case and not yours.

                Also: “Muslims consider inviting others to Islam to be the mission originally carried out by the Prophets of Allah and is now a collective duty of Muslims”. Quran 16:25 is quoted to support proselytising: “Invite (others) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and reason with them in ways that are best. Your Lord knows best who is straying from His path and who is being guided (towards it)”. There is a photo next to it showing a Muslim proselytizer distributing copies of the Quran in Switzerland.
                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism

                If all this is fringe groups, please provide evidence that they are.

          • Raymond Ibrahim’s essay on taqiyya was published in Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst. You’ve quoted from Michael Ryan rebuttal in the above journal. Raymond Ibrahim wrote a rebuttal to Michael Ryan and other critics under “Taqiyya Revisited: A Response to the Critics”. It’s obvious from reading Ibrahim’s rebuttal that his essay is supported by Islam’s greatest scholars, jurists and the ulema (body of expert Muslim scholars in Islamic Law and theology) whereas Ryan’s rebuttal is not:

            “For starters, Ryan is not a careful reader: he says I fail to mention ijma (consensus) among the ulema, even though I repeatedly cite and delineate the ulema’s (quite consensual) verdicts supporting taqiyya”.

            “As expected, whereas I listed and quoted several authoritative jurists justifying taqiyya, Ryan makes only flat counter-assertions whose plausibility rests solely in the fact that they comport with the epistemology of the Western, secular reader…”

            “Ryan next spends time making the argument that the word taqiyya “never appears in the Quran”. Absolutely true. But of course, all this overlooks the fact that the Koran is not the all-in-all in Islam; more important in determining right and wrong (i.e., in articulating sharia) are the hadith-derived sunna, and the indispensable tafsirs and ijma (exegeses and consensus) of the ulema. And these do use the word “taqiyya” and do define it as lying and deception”.

            “Perhaps Ryan thinks his non-Muslim, that is, infidel, exegesis of 3:28 will be more acceptable to the average Muslim than the exegeses of the pious Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and other ulema?”
            https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2009/02/26/taqiyya-revisited-a-response-to-the-critics/

            • Jason, just in case you haven’t been listening to radio, TV, or read newspapers, or talked to anyone in New Zealand – what are your thoughts on the cold blooded murder of fifty New Zealanders?

              • Frank, Please see my other post to you which will answer to your concerns. You can see here that I am replying to what Brewer has said about two authors. He is attacking them and I am defending them – it’s a straightforward debate.

                It was worse than the cold blooded murder of 50 New Zealanders. It was a terrorist attack by a Nazi white supremacist on Muslims purely because they were Muslims. It is the same as an Islamic terrorist attack but just a different ideology.

                We have to call it out for what it is but we shouldn’t put people who are critical of Islam and/or immigration into the same basket as a Nazi white supremacist terrorist. Likewise, we should call out an Islamic terrorist attack for what it is. An Islamic terrorist bases his attack on Islamic scripture but we don’t put all Muslims who follow Islam into the same basket as the terrorist.

            • Raymond Ibrahim is a director of the Middle East Forum, an American Zionist think tank founded in 1990 by Daniel Pipes. This group has been placed on the Hate Watch list by the Southern Poverty Law Center for financing a rally in London in support of English far-right provocateur Tommy Robinson. The MEF also bankrolled Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar’s trip to the U.K. to attend the rally for Robinson. I think we can reasonably infer Ibrahim’s mind-set.
              The debate between he and Michael Ryan is one of interpretation. Interpretation is highly influenced by one’s mind-set.
              Exactly the same negative conclusions about Christianity can be drawn from the Bible and sayings of certain Christian leaders if one brings such a mind-set. They would be of similar accuracy when compared with the majority of Christian practice.
              If your “study of Islam” is informed by such “teachers” I fully understand why we are at odds on this topic.
              I prefer to read the actual History of Islam’s relations with other religions and peoples and draw my own conclusions.
              One of those conclusions is that Christians and Judaics would not have survived centuries of residence among Moslems if half of what these fellows say were true – in fact I doubt Islam itself could survive.

    • Andy, you’re aware of Roman Catholic priests abusing children?

      Do you think those paedophile priests define the entire Catholic faith?

      Now, do you think that the actions of radicalised Islmamists – reacting against Western imperialist intervention throughout their countries – reflects on muslims throughout the world?

      Have a thought for a moment on events in Germany post World War 1. Or in Cambodia post Vietnam War.

      The common link? Societies stressed by major warfare, looking to extremist ideologues for answers. Western intervention in the middle east to protect oil interests have propped up dictators; over-thrown at least one democratic government; supported Israeli aggression, etc etc.

      Do you wonder why there is a radical reaction against the West?

      We’ve even seen a ‘watered down’ version in Britain and the US, with ‘Brexit” and Trump, respectively. Again, voters reacting against economic policies that have impacted negatively on their lives.

      When societies are stressed by warfare or harsh economic events, people react irrationally.

      The mistake is to label all people with the same reputation. Muslim New Zealanders have responded with the same tolerance, love, and humanity that non-Muslims have shown to them.

      Imagine, for a moment, if the entire world conducted itself the same way.

  12. Totally agree with your message here Keith, and I would add that clamping down on people’s freedoms to speak, assemble, or organize, do not help Muslims or make any of us any safer either. In fact I believe they do the opposite, and I’ve sent Bomber a guest blog piece explaining exactly why, which I hope gets published on TDB.

    One thing I’m not so convinced of is this:
    > One takeaway from the Christchurch massacre seems to be that a violent act by a “lone wolf” is very hard to detect.

    Firstly, this man was not a “lone wolf”. He was part of the Bruce Rifle Club in Dunedin, which according to a very convincing video by a teary-eyed gun owner, had been reported to the local Police as a potential source of hate crimes.

    Secondly, the Police have demonstrated an impressive ability to infiltrate activist groups who go to great lengths to conceal *non-violent* direct actions until they happen (remember Nick Hagar’s expose on Rob Gilchrist). Given the resources they poured into Operation 8, I find it extremely worrying that they did not seem to investigate a club carrying out firearms training in a politicized cultural atmosphere and monitor its members for any signs of plans to carry out a *violent* act. There’s more to this story.

    • The Tama Iti and the Urewera Raids got more attention from the SIS and the NZ Police than the Bruce Gun Club ?

      May be it was a skin colour issue with the SIS, NZ Police and Helen Clarke ?

  13. Keith, thankyou for your blog, putting an historical context on current events.

    Although it’s positive to see the widespread sympathy for Muslims and rejection of the massacre, there are several things I find contradictory. First, a part of the sympathy seems to me a rejection of what people previously thought about Muslims. Certainly, a social move led by Jacinda, towards accepting Muslims is a positive thing.

    I heard a woman called Imogen talking on RNZ (18/3) about the Muslim women’s group she is part of, lobbying government to get support to counter the racism they encounter daily. She detailed the many demands they made over recent years. One was that funding to support them should match the money spent on surveillance of them. No government has met any of their demands.

    Another disturbing aspect of the massacre was the support for the live footage from hundreds of people on facebook.

    Some of these posts mention smugness and complacency. I agree, we can praise ourselves for what we do right, but recognise what is nasty in our society. Thank you for spelling this out Janine, Nick J,John W and the others who did.

  14. I have checked with RNZ. The Muslim woman I heard is Anjum Rahman of the Islamic Women’s Council of NZ. Susan Devoy is speaking out about the same rejections she had from government when she spoke with/for the Islamic Women’s Council. I am impressed with Dame Susan then and now.

  15. A while ago I wrote in a blog something that was completely misconstrued. The phrase was something like “useless gays like Richard the Lionheart and Alexander the Great”. This was of course meant to be satirical, they were amazing men. To my amazement the comment was deleted and now, when for example I published a blog with the word “nightmare” in it (relating to overcrowded cities), I find my comment is “awaiting moderation”. Censorship? You bet.
    Assuming this text does not also get deleted, I feel I should point out some facts relevant to the Christchurch massacre.
    We are all a type of ape. It’s official – if you’re prepared to believe Stephan Hawking. What makes us different is the 1 or 2 percent DNA differences that have almost certainly led to the towering difference – speech. Speech has allowed us to hand knowledge down to our children. It has led us to the enormous differences in the way we live compared to our cousins.
    Unfortunately, it has also led to the continued existence of superstition. Our natural fear of death has of course led to religion. Unfortunately, the selfish characteristics which we needed to survive on the Serengeti have often worked against us when it came to religion. The (Catholic) church has a horrific history that is entirely related to the power it had. Read the history of the Cathars in early 13th century France if you want some graphic examples. Popes and Cardinals were politicians (for “politician” read “opportunist”). The Church was the only way to power if you were not born into the aristocracy.
    Fortunately for us, the Church eventually lost it’s power and has now subsided into relative obscurity (apart from where we all know they still had some power – no more said). The process of removing that power took hundreds of years.
    So, what about Islam? Much the same hisory but the power is still very much there. The history is however tragically different in one respect: Islam was born amidst a series of vicious conflicts between the Church and anyone who dared think differently. This is of course reflected in the text of the Quran. If the Quran were anything but the statement of such a powerful religion it would of course (and quite rightly) face criticism as a hate speech manual.
    Now, enter the concept of what I will call Group Dynamics (GD) and their effect on large disparate groups by the acts of a small percentage of extremists. There’s no doubt that the perpetrator of the Christchurch massacre is a psychopath. Notwithstanding that, the act was of course waiting to happen. You don’t get a constant stream of similar acts across the world by a small percentage of one group (calling themselves the voice of their religion) without something like this eventually happening. How many churches will pay as a result? We don’t know, we only know they will.
    So, the GDs of isolation and fear rule the roost. The acts of the few have led to the isolation of the many and a mutual feeling of fear and hostility between neighbors. This has inevitably escalated, isolation leads to more unemployment etc etc – a feedback effect.
    In the case of Islam all this is unfortunately exacerbated by the degree to which the holders of that faith are bound to it. Christians go to church once a week. They do their worshipping 5 times a day. The unfortunate psychological outcome is that they are virtually blind to the necessary action: The Quran MUST be edited. It’s a red flag to every extremist bull. I know those who suggest it will initially face the same forces as the Church used against it’s internal critics. But it MUST happen.
    Stability through censorship simply won’t cut it. Addressing the problem will require a major effort to convince Muslims that the Quran in it’s current form is quite literally a danger to society. It’s not a task I would envy anyone and certainly not one our clueless media would currently dream of even mentioning. However, the consequences of failure are huge. Eventually, a physical separation of the communities with all that that implies. Impossible you say? It has already happened once in Europe’s history. There is already a real risk of serious civil unrest in countries like France We simply cannot afford to ignore the elephant and continue to turn the other cheek.
    Constructive replies appreciated, cries of “Racist”, “Far Right” etc. etc. expected.

  16. I’ve studied Islam for over 8 years and debated countless Muslims in numerous forums. Therefore, I approach this from a very sound knowledge of Islam and how Muslims interpret their religion.

    I do not agree with us taking part in wars in Muslim countries but I do not believe that doing so leads to prejudice against Muslims in New Zealand. Notwithstanding that, how do we deal with ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, etc without western countries helping Muslim and non Muslim countries who are suffering greatly because of these Islamic terrorist groups?

    You can’t conflate race with religion. There are plenty of white Muslims so to criticise Islam does make someone a racist. A phobia is an irrational fear. People who fear Islam including ex Muslims are fearful for very rational reasons. The term “Islamophobia” is used to close down meaningful and needed debate of Islam. If we continue as in this article, we will be doing exactly what the evil neo Nazi terrorist wants us to do. We’ll also be doing exactly what the Islamists want us to do by playing the Islamophobia and racist cards. They hide behind those.

    “The white supremacist and Islamophobic message presented today is that Islam is a violent religion, or at least has the capacity to take a violent form….”

    Violence to defend and importantly to spread Islam is a very important part of the religion so much so that Prophet Muhammad said no other deed equalled fighting in the cause of Allah (jihad) for reward from Allah. It has been a part of the religion since Prophet Muhammad was given “the order to fight” from Allah just before departing Mecca for Medina. These are facts and not a part of some white supremacist agenda.

    It would be a grave mistake to withdraw from the Five Eyes Intelligence Network. Intelligence gathering is the main weapon in defeating terrorism in any form. Without intelligence, you may as well disband your counter terrorism units because they become totally ineffective. Most terrorist plots are stopped because of intelligence gathering.

    The author is anti racism yet his article is replete with deep racial hatred towards white people! It is as if it’s their fault for everything bad that has happened and is currently happening in the World. The approach in this article has failed spectacularly in the UK and in European countries. It has caused the movement towards the right wing in their politics. We should learn from their mistakes.

    • The author is anti racism yet his article is replete with deep racial hatred towards white people!

      And yet, Jason, the killer was white and his victims were mostly (if not all) non-white. You’ve barely touched on that salient point. But you’re very, very concerned for white people…

      What else would you like to share with us?

      • The “salient” points in my comment, which you have missed entirely, was for us not to make the same mistakes as the UK/Europe in our use of the terms “Islamophobia” and “racist”.

        I take it that you are OK with the deep racial hatred towards white people in this article and the use of the term Islamophobia. If you are then we are going to repeat the exact same mistakes that the UK/Europe have made which will produce the exact same unwanted results.

        Racism is wrong regardless as to whom it is aimed at.

  17. Thank you Keith. I enjoy your articles. And I guess you would know how wonderful our NZ security services are having been surveilled by them since childhood.

    “Many New Zealanders have picked up Jacinda Ardern’s theme “this is not us” but unfortunately this message is only partly true. Islamophobia is deeply embedded in our society.”
    Racism is deeply embedded in our society. Unfortunately it is us.
    From the security intelligence services, police, public service who deem that only controlled people are to be allowed in positions of power. To the agencies who control our controllers.
    To the nice people who are shocked by this horrific event but once burn out will go back to their boxes and continue on with life as normal.

    And yes we send troops to help fight Muslims in the Middle East because we have to do our duty. Millions of Muslims have been killed in wars in the ME. And we have been complicit in this.
    Madeline Albright thinks killing 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it. And Israel’s despicable actions against Palestinians in Gaza? Shhsh we can’t say anything because that’s anti-semetic. So ME countries are bombed back to the stone age because ‘democracy’ oh and ‘weapons of mass destruction’. But really It’s all about the oil baby.
    So we worry why radicalised Muslims? The answer is pretty obvious.

    And the EU lets in refugees from those Middle Eastern countries they helped destroy. And the leaders of countries who don’t want unfettered immigration (a la NZ) eg Hungary, Poland, Austria to a lesser extent, are labelled as fascists and Nationalists – verging on ‘white supremacists’. Nazis even. While the Nazis in the Ukraine are armed and loved. (They might be Neo Nazis but they’re our Neo Nazis). Trump in the USA. (except Obama sent more illegal immigrants home than Trump has). And now the right is evil and the left are angels.

    And suddenly we get a white supremacist shooting Muslims in New Zealand?

    So how did this happen?
    NZ is a small place – someone knows someone who knows someone else.
    The police were warned about the rifle club he belonged to – they did nothing
    The police were warned about the growing white supremacist faction in Christchurch and their love affair with guns – they did nothing
    We belong to 5 eyes. They share intelligence – they did nothing
    John Podesta and Clinton were here a few days before the shooting and met with Ardern – ever read Podesta’s emails? And still we know nothing.
    The alleged shooter was in Turkey prior to the bombings and left shortly after. He would have been flagged and on everyone’s list – we did nothing.
    The SIS said he had no criminal convictions so they did nothing.
    NSA data gathers are at work – they did nothing.
    I’m sure Keith knows that if these agencies really wanted to they would have done something. This is 2019. The technological age. Available Equipment, including mind altering techniques supersedes anything James Bond would have had and still NOTHING was done.

    I’m obviously missing something.

    ANd Frank you are a bit missionary in your zeal. Black and white, right and wrong. If you don’t agree with me I’m not open to different view points. Kia kaha bro.

    • Also normies don’t get a chance to publish terrorist bibles here, or islamaphobia, or white guilt. It kind of forces people to be more reasonable and better people. In my opinion it wasn’t some social media strategy it was just a way of differentiating the Daily Blog from the other sewer blogs. Want instant highes there plenty of that out there.

      • SAM – I can’t reply to your comments to me above this thread because there isn’t a “reply box” on your comments to me so I’m replying here.

        You said: “Ahem. Seems like we got some trueeeeeeeeee believers”.

        True believers in what?

        The rest of your reply to my post has no connection with what I wrote.

        You said: “Only reason to evade moderation is if you want to get bullied. Would you like that?”

        My reply was to Brewer who said he debated on Disqus so I’m not trying to evade moderation.

        • Well now you are back-pedalling. Muslims and Islam have been living in New Zealand comfortably for long enough. You haven’t said a single good argument about any of the other great monotheisms which just lacks reason and logic. Clearly you can’t handle the jandle and are leaving loopholes because your arguments are trash.

        • (Apologies if this is a double up)

          Well now you are back-pedalling. Muslims and Islam have been living in New Zealand comfortably for long enough. You haven’t said a single good argument about any of the other great monotheisms which just lacks reason and logic. Clearly you can’t handle the jandle and are leaving loopholes because your arguments are trash.

          • Where and on what have I back – peddled?

            You still haven’t answered this: True believers in what?

            You obviously have a problem with comprehension because both of your replies to me have nothing to do with what I posted.

            “Clearly you can’t handle the jandle and are leaving loopholes because your arguments are trash”.

            Show me where my posts are as you describe above. I won’t hold my breath because people like you usually have nothing to offer in a debate.

  18. The GCSB and SIS don’t investigate White Supremists because they regard them as being in their team.It’s practically in the job description!!!

Comments are closed.