Has Jacinda allowed the trauma of Christchurch Atrocity to justify extreme expansion of Police & State Power?

9
4307

We were all horrified by the atrocity in Christchurch.

That a person could carry out a white supremacist terror attack on NZ soil in the modern age shocked and disgusted all righteous people.

The emotional stress of being a leader during this time was extreme and Jacinda’s courage and strength shone as an example for the entire planet.

She was right to ban the weapons the terrorist used.

She was right to meet with social media providers and demand they be accountable for allowing live streamed murder and violence to not only be accessible on their platforms but share them to millions.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

She was right to not name this deformity and give his hatred none of the attention he so sickly craved.

However.

In the wake of this atrocity the security apparatus have seized upon the Government’s disgust and anger to push for huge advances of power.

This is problematic because it was the Intelligence Apparatus who failed us all so spectacularly. How could a white supremacist who crossed the border on several occasions, who was looking at hard core internationalist white supremacy online and who had been complained about on numerous occasions from others who met him at shooting clubs be ignored while the Greens, MANA, Greenpeace, investigative journalists, Muslims and Māori all get spied upon?

Why are we giving the security agencies more power when they have misused the powers they already have?

The new powers to stop prisoner letters erodes their civil rights needlessly.

New powers to allow roving armed Police that go beyond incidents where a gun isn’t actually presented is a recipe for disaster to those communities where the Police open fire first and ask questions second.

The new Firearms Prohibition Orders (FPO) allow for vast breaches of human rights which can be exploited by the Police with very little way of checks and balances and as the Chief Justice to Parliament points out, the new proposed terrorism Bill is an affront to civil liberties…

Chief Justice to Parliament: Proposed terrorism bill inadequate, unworkable

The highest judicial officer in the land has taken the rare step of writing to Parliament to expose holes in a proposed law aimed at shackling Kiwi terrorists who come home after fighting overseas.

Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann has sent a written submission to the foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee to outline her concerns with the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) bill.

The bill would let police apply to a High Court judge for a control order to impose conditions on a terrorist who returned to New Zealand after being involved in terrorist activities overseas.

…and that follows even more strident criticism by the Privacy Commissioner

Privacy Commissioner blasts ‘obnoxious’, ‘fundamentally flawed’ anti-terror law

The Privacy Commissioner is lashing out at a proposed law that would impose restrictions on returning New Zealanders involved in terrorism, describing it as “obnoxious”. 

…as someone who has personally fought Police abuse of power, handing these buggers even more power isn’t a solution.

There was much to celebrate in Jacinda’s initial response to the Christchurch atrocity, but agencies who see an opportunity to expand powers while they currently misuse those they have isn’t a solution to extremist violence.

No one is being made safer by these unchecked expansions of Police and State power.

9 COMMENTS

  1. We will never know the truth. Was Jacinda stampeded into hasty and ill considered action by the cops or was she always intent on gun confiscation and used the attack as an excuse to railroad it through?

    It’s worth recalling a similar event in Norway a few years back when a fascist called Anders Breivik also shot and killed a lot of people. After the incident the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, cautioned against emotional and hasty response and allowed the authorities to fully investigate and produce the equivalent of our Royal Commission report before considering any law changes.

    Our government did it the other way around – immediately announcing sweeping law changes to confiscate guns, only to have to issue repeated updates because of errors and inconsistencies. The changes gave the cops FAR too much power to enter and search without warrants, and added a massive bureaucratic burden in the form of the firearms register – a thing the Canadians tried and gave up on recently because of the complexity and cost involved.

    But that’s just the start of it! There are some really disturbing aspects to this whole business. Consider the following:

    The Royal Commission will report to government but will not publish it’s findings. What is this government intent on hiding?

    The accused shooter lived in Dunedin but made his licence application in Hamilton. I’m told by LFOs that it was well known at the time that Hamilton was a soft touch for getting a gun licence.

    The government had previously scrapped the need for detailed background checks and interviews of applicants and their references as a cost saving measure. The politician who oversaw that change needs to own it.

    Was the accused Australian’s mental and criminal record checked by the NZ authorities when he applied? This is unlikely because the cops have subsequently been handing out dozens of gun licences to gang members who have been deported from Aussie! I shake my head at the complete and utter incompetence of our police. If they’re not shooting themselves in the arse they’re handing out gun licences to Comancheros.

    Last week it transpired in oral submissions that the accused shooter had obtained a firearms licence and was making a bulk purchase of ammunition within 5-6 weeks of arriving in the country. This was when there was typically a 6 months backlog for simple renewals, and much longer for new licence applications. When this was mentioned in the submission, the audio feed was shut down part way through. Luckily the person making the submission recorded it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxOETacDaRs
    How did he get his licence so quickly? Did he have a mate in a position of authority who expedited it for him?

    Lastly why has so little of this been covered by media? Who is censoring the press?

    • Yes – the ‘censorship’ is the result of the definite left-leaning bias of Journalists and their editors. The whole process of gun banning was railroaded through by a government that is anti gun, and by its actions anti democratic. Soon we will have “Hate speech” laws too, an attack on free speech i.e. an speech that the authorities don’t like, following the example of Massey University.

  2. Ms Ardern, as the daughter of a Murupara policeman, sees no problem in overseeing the creation of a police state. To her it must seem the most natural thing in the world. It was clear from the day she entered the Prime Ministerial office and received the infamous “security chiefs memo” that her policy would be complete subservience to the demands of the security forces.
    Naturally the judiciary are uneasy about Ardern’s plans. Their reputation both at home and abroad is contingent upon a state which operates according to the rule of law. When that goes, they will command no more respect than the judiciary in any other despotic third world country.
    Ardern will have the support of the Chief Censor, the security forces and to its disgrace, the colonialist parliament. But she will not have support or even assent from the people of this land.

  3. I follow this issue closely. I’ve always been curious about whether Kiwis, Aussies and Yanks agree on the value of limited government. Thus far, I’ve been encouraged.

  4. This is right out of Leninism’s playbook. The power of the state exercised through the increased power of the police, for all of the right reasons, excuses and justifications.
    Down on Animal Farm it will always be 1984 😉

Comments are closed.