On the trial, on the failure of our intelligence agencies & on the blame game


On the Trial:

When the Nuremberg trials occurred, it was essential to those prosecuting that the trial not only found the Nazi’s guilty, but proved them wrong for history and progressive humanity’s sake – that Brenton Tarrant intends to defend himself shouldn’t surprise anyone, people with this level of psychopathic murderous intent tend to be narcissists,  but we shouldn’t fear him using the trail as a platform, we should relish it as the opportunity to not only find him guilty of a heinous atrocity, but to undeniably crush his justifications and arguments.

Wanting to censor the trial or hide his words is a natural response but we are being tested globally and our justice system is strong and our values deeper than his sophistry of hate. We have nothing to fear standing in the light and dragging him into it. In fact, it’s our obligation to do so.

On the failure of our Intelligence Agencies:

Having read the manifesto, it is abundantly clear that his specific use of keywords would have been picked up by algorithm if NZ intelligence apparatus had been searching for white supremacists instead of seeing Māori, Environmentalists, the MANA Party, the Greens and Greenpeace as the threat.

I don’t want the SIS gaining more power, I just want them using the existing powers towards real threats.

On the Blame Game:

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The current game on twitter of ‘you-fed-hate-so-you’re-responsible-for-the-murder-of-50-people’ is neat but it utterly misses where the actual responsibility lies:

1 – with the mutant who pulled the trigger.

2 – with a mass surveillance intelligence apparatus who utterly failed us.

Beyond those two, Whaleoil has some real soul searching over their hate speech of Muslims and the National Party for endorsing the UN conspiracy but the exact worst way to combat white supremacy is a vast censoring of every right wing opinion you disagree with.

That’s not to say there isn’t white supremacy in NZ, oh Lord, there is. It permeates everything in this country like low level background radiation, from the broken promise of the Treaty, to taking 180 years to apologise for Parihaka, to Asian New Zealanders facing the highest level of racism week to week, to Māori incarceration rates, to Pacific Island poverty stats to Muslim woman verbally harassed on the street everyday. That racism needs to be tackled head on as part of the necessary healing we collectively require in the wake of this atrocity, but this diseased human being didn’t commit this atrocity because of Mike Hosking.

White supremacy breeds into violence when it’s forced underground. I did my first TV interview with NeoNazis in NZ in the late 1990s on The Drum, these are damaged and warped individuals who need their ideology debunked by debate not empowered via deplatforming.

This diseased mutation of an individual picked NZ not because we are a nerve centre of white supremacy and hate, but because we were the exact opposite of that and our collective sadness and anguish at such hatred shows we are more than this event and that while it must shape us to do better and be better, we can not allow it to define us.



  1. The GCSB budget, $153m. The NZSIS budget, $83m.
    The Sun newspaper, 30p and you get daily reports from Mystic Meg!

    • Yeah but the Sun protects its profits with click bait. I’d argue we need agencies that can effectively promote New Zealand’s national interests. Effectively and all, like.

          • Would love to have a look at the GCSB & SIS Accounts and see a breakdown of where they spend their money, big commissions to Peter Thiel and Palantir ?

  2. Very succinctly put. When you feel the need to censor these nutters, you’re effectively implying they actually have something pertinent to say. Everything this nutjob says will be easily dismissed with basic debate and so should be made entirely public imo. I get that it’s easier to bury him and suffocate his crazy agenda, but that may very well serve to strengthen his message of hatred rather than weaken it.

    • Nitrium, you assume that these far right nutters want to engage in polite debate with you. I repeat my assertion made on my recent blogpost: they are way past polite debate.

      Allowing him a platform in Court is the worst possible thing we could do. It would compound his crime. Think of how Clayton Weatherston turned his court case in a circus. Now imagine the alleged shooter doing the same – but with an audience around the world.

      And we have to ask ourselves, is that what we really want?

      • I guess you think less of your fellow humans (and NZers) than I do(?). I think most people will see right through his racist nonsense, and strengthen their resolve to fight it. I guess you think that he will inspire more than he will alienate? Is this the future society you want – i.e. one where messages of intolerance and hatred aren’t allowed to be debated? What happens when your politics (e.g. Hitler Germany – yes Godwin’s Law in a 2nd post, just like you did to me a year or two ago for one my posts – I ‘member) are suppressed by the Government of the day as “hate speech”?

        • I guess you think that he will inspire more than he will alienate?

          Nitrium, what do you think was his purpose to live-stream his attack on Youtube? Of course it was to inspire.

          According to reports from Britain, there are already copy-cat incidents occurring on muslims and people of colour.

          ref: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/17/counter-terrorism-police-launch-investigation-suspected-far/

          Is this the future society you want – i.e. one where messages of intolerance and hatred aren’t allowed to be debated?

          I keep hearing this thing about “debate”.

          When is the last time you posted on Kiwiblog or Whaleoil to debate with Farrar and Slater’s followers? Our presence here on TDB is nothing more than an echo chamber. If you’re so keen to debate with right-wingers, you know where to find them.

          By the way, I don’t invoke Godwin’s Law. The rise of fascism in Europe in the 20s and 30s is a valid historical lesson. We ignore it at our peril.

          On that point, we are in agreement.

          just like you did to me a year or two ago for one my posts

          What? A year ago?! Wow, I must’ve made an impression. Your memory is better than mine, I can’t remember what I had for breakfast yesterday (toast with figs off my tree? But it might’ve been Sunday).

          But… seriously?

          • It’s not my intention to belittle, insult, or otherwise demean you personally, Nitrium. This is the debate we talk about. The contest of ideas may get robust (god, I hate that word – so over-used) but that shows the passion of everyone involved. If my words caused you personal harm, I apologise unreservedly.

            • Frank, it’s all good and there is no need for any sort of apology. For the record, I was banned within just three posts on Whaleoil: they deliberately want an echo-chamber there while Bomber has so far always welcomed debate (he’s clearly an advocate of freedom of expression). Indeed, that’s precisely why I like TDB and why I regularly post here (not to mention I’m a big old socialist).
              It is 100% normal that people don’t agree on everything – a healthy debate on issues is just that, healthy. Yes, I play devil’s advocate on occasion, which obviously comes across as highly irritating for many of the readers here. For that I must apologise, but I’m one of those (I’m sure super annoying) people that don’t just automatically roll over and believe/trust everything I see and hear (i.e. “question everything”). Many things (especially politics) have positive and negative angles depending on your point of view/circumstances and need to be debated for an informed opinion to be made.

              • Nitrium & Frank, your willingness to apologise to each other shows you both people of integrity.

                Well done.

          • I did forget the winky after the Godwin bit (Poe’s Law – so my bad – and yes my memory is that good, and yes you totally invoked it within your 2nd post a year or two ago replying to me). But back on topic, do you think literal Hitler‘s Mein Kampf should be banned in NZ (joining just five countries where this is the case) on the grounds that no possible good can from having it legal and available? You’re starting to sound a smidge Orwellian to me – i.e. all debate that doesn’t subscribe to your sensibilities/opinion is de facto without any conceivable merit. I like to think we can learn from our societal mistakes and failings. If we don’t listen to/understand what makes people like Tarrant tick how can we ever stop their abhorrent ideology before it manifests in mass murder?

              • Wut? How do you “stand up against the far right” without engaging with them? Driving their ideology underground via censorship and then subsequently pretending it doesn’t exist? Mkay. Good luck with that.

  3. I agree we have to hear Tarrant out. His views are out there and underground, just as ISIS extremist views are out there and underground.

    They must be given the light of day and examined. We must know how these people who become terrorists are caused, what their motivation is and who are behind them, enabling them and manipulating them.

    Atrocities are committed by extremists on both sides who have put their ideology before their humanity and made their murderous ‘Means’ justify their ‘Ends’.

    What has caused this extremism?…imo it began with the illegitimate invasions of Iraq , Libya and Syria where millions of Islamic peoples have had their lives destroyed and been made homeless and refugees…and then there is the long festering sore of the Palestinians alienated from their homeland Palestine

    I do not agree that we are responsible for the mosque killings in Christchurch.

    I have never seen racism in Christchurch. I have seen skin heads but not overt racism or racial violence…but I know feelings of displacement , white Western cultural supremacy and also racial and cultural resentment exists on all sides; just as misogyny and sexism exists and rape exists and homophobia exists…a lot of violence of which is also hidden

    …all religions and cultures should take a look at themselves

    We can disagree, we can talk …but extremist violence is an extreme admission of powerlessness and a failure of humanity… and it begets more violence in a never ending circle until we have forgotten the original reasons and violations

    We can not shirk the truth …We must listen and hear

    We must take the action example of Mahatma Gandhi

    • Well then how do we respond to The War on Terror kiwi style? Terrorist scum promoting white supremacy use fear of violence to silence it’s victims and murder them. Should we respond in kind with fear of violence to silence them, and murder them? Does any one but White House administrations believe that’s a proper response, I certainly don’t. So if we don’t think thats the correct response to terrorist grievances then it’s not the correct response to our grieving. The Prime Minister certainly doesn’t agree that terrorist scum are one of us, every one of any importance has rejected terrorist ideology outright so good. We can not engage in the same terrorist modus operandi as was the response previously with the Tuhoe Raids and then the war on Afghanistan.

      So the correct approach to waking up from The War on Terror is the current approach adopted by the Prime Minister and her cabinet which is to spread hope and openness. Conduct carful investigations, if it’s international go to the appropriate international authority which could be Turkeys Government and if they’re less than forth coming then go to the UN and under there authority walk back trade and relations and raise punitive sanctions until they are fourth coming. That in my opinion is a fair response and if we think that is a fair response then we would do the same to John Key, Helen Clark, Howard Broad and Jerry Mateparae to even reach the minimal level of National Security and integrity.

  4. I find it hard to imagine anyone watching the terrorist’d video could feel anything but revulsion and nausea. I certainly have no interest in doing so. Everyone can imagine what it must look like unless they manage to turn their mind off it. It can’t be any more appealing than watching video’s of people having their throats cut or being burnt alive in a cage.
    And surely hearing his testimony will invoke the same reaction. He was apparently inspired by Breivik in Norway though , so there might be some examples of contagion with this desperation for a moment of fame from someone no one would ever notice otherwise. But this has to be a tiny minority of humanity already badly deranged. I believe that we aught to be strong and confident enough in out collective humanity to allow the proper established process of public access to court proceedings to operate as normal. The judge has some control of irrelevant speech. Making his trial secret may serve his purpose more than leaving it to run as normal as it would add to the notoriety he obviously craves.
    D J S

    • Its not the NZ public that Tarrant will be playing to. Its his world wide audience in the alt.right movement

      Lets try to separate the 2. The vast majority of NZers will be repulsed by Tarrant but thousands around the world will be encourage and emboldened by him

  5. I agree with you 100% on the need to protect freedom of speech.

    If we allow ourselves to be prevented from expressing our opinions regarding this event, then after the next event (and there will always be a next event) the authorities will ratchet down a little more until we finish up like the UK where the cops run around arresting people for saying something ‘offensive’ in Facebook. Where a Scottish comedian gets arrested, charged and convicted of a criminal offence for making a joke in bad taste.

    A similar argument applies to firearms. OK so we ban semi-automatics to make ourselves feel safer, to kid ourselves that it was the guns that killed those poor people. And the next crackpot uses a pump action to similar effect. So we ban those too. etc etc etc. until we have a situation like the UK where terrorism is committed with bombs, trucks, acid & knives. (Despite an absolute ban in the 80’s UK gun crime is just as prevalent as it was before the ban)

    • Freedom of speech is not the right to dehumanise others and thereby encouraging zealots to commit atrocities Isn’t that why we expect ISIS propaganda videos to be removed from various web platforms

      As others more articulate than me have pointed out its others who pay the price of that “free speech” not us white folks

      50 were killed on 15 march. How many more??

      • I agree, this isn’t a ‘freedom of speech’ issue at all, a complete red herring to conflate his hate filled propaganda for that. I certainly do not want to need to hear what he says, it will be complete illogical madness, and to make it public is to fulfill his darkest desire, and feed the beast of other like minded fanatics, maybe even inspire one of them like he was inspired.

  6. We live as a vassal state of the U.S.Empire which has spent the last 20 years closing down all elements of criticism of its evil regime.Three news distribution outlets completely control the news throughout the whole Western world.Propaganda and false news is the order of the day.The political system is hopelessly corrupt on both sides of congress.The Govt Departments are revolving doors for interaction with a corrupt financial and manufacturing/services sector. Corruption rules in the educational and scientific establishments.The military industrial sector comprises 50% of GDP.War is the business of this inheritor of the tactics of Nazi Germany.In this context, to suggest the solution to hate crimes is to try to conceal it ,is to aid and abet the modus operandi that is being used to befuddle and confuse us. If people cannot see that the actions of the Christchurch Mosque murderers are beyond the pale, then there is no hope.Expose the cockroaches to the sunlight and let us judge them!!!

  7. We are actually talking more than freedom of speech here. What we are doing if we limit the ability of the defendant to express his case is set a precedent that will enable our legal system to emulate totalitarian states. And the thinking that we should do so because of the nastiness of his ideology is in itself quite extreme, authoritarian even.

    Our court system even though imperfectly has developed over centuries, the issues around this case are not new. There are options open to the judge to limit exposure however.

    To give air to the offenders obnoxious views may be painful, but it does allow us to counter and send a message that this wont be tolerated. It also allows justice to be done by the will of the people, for the victims through our rickety but tested institutions.

  8. ” We have nothing to fear standing in the light and dragging him into it. In fact, it’s our obligation to do so.”

    Finally…! A breath of fresh common sense.
    Congratulations@ Martyn Bradbury.

Comments are closed.