Hollow Laughter, Mixed With Tears.
They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound.
“They All Laughed”, Ira and George Gershwin, 1937
THERE IS absolutely no humour in the tragic sequence of events that unfolded in the New Lynn mall on Friday. Perhaps the only positive aspect of this latest terrorist attack is that, to date, the only fatality has been the terrorist himself. There was plenty of heroism in the bloody aisles of that Countdown supermarket, however, and plenty of cool professionalism also. On a shaky cellphone video, now viewed by millions, the clearly audible sequence of rapid-fire pistol shots indicated an officer determined to bring the Isis-inspired, knife-wielding perpetrator’s stabbing-spree to a halt.
Why quote the Gershwin brothers, then? What is there to laugh at?
The black humour of this situation derives not from the terrorist attack, but from a review of the way elements of the New Zealand Left have, by turns, scoffed at the very idea that terrorism might constitute a genuine threat to this country’s national security; castigated the national security apparatus for failing to prevent the atrocity of 15 March 2019; and then, reversing direction once again, cautioned against an excessively draconian response to the events of the past few days.
One of the reasons the New Lynn terrorist, Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen, was not safely incarcerated on Friday afternoon, is because, as the judge overseeing an earlier trial pointed out, securing a conviction on a charge of planning and/or preparing to carry out a terrorist attack in New Zealand is just too difficult. Only when an act of terrorism has been committed does the law have anything useful to contribute. The judge’s speculation that this weakness in New Zealand’s anti-terrorist legislation might turn out to be its “Achilles Heel” has been dramatically vindicated.
Why nobody spotted this deficiency in the Terrorist Suppression Act 2002, which was passed by the New Zealand Parliament in response to the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, remains a mystery. It is, after all, rather difficult to imagine how terrorism might be suppressed if, when preparations for launching a terrorist attack are detected, the loose wording of the Act effectively prevents the authorities from intervening until after the event had taken place. They would have been better advised to entitle the legislation the “Shutting the Stable Door Act”.
It took the curious case of the alleged Urewera military training camps to fully expose the inadequacies of the Terrorism Suppression Act. As things turned out it proved to be next-to-useless in dealing with activities suggestive of a terrorist campaign in its preparatory stages. Alerted to the existence of armed groups engaging in military-style training exercises in the Urewera mountains, the Police mounted an extensive surveillance operation culminating in the arrest of 17 individuals in October 2007.
There were many reasons why the Police’s “Operation Eight” failed. The inadequacy of the Terrorism Suppression Act was one of them; the excessively intimidatory raid on the little town of Ruatoki another. Critical to the whole exercise’s failure, however, was the extraordinarily successful campaign waged on behalf of the defendants by the Far Left.
At the heart of this campaign was the carefully cultivated perception that the whole exercise was farcical – a bit of a joke. New Zealand just wasn’t the sort of place where terrorism was seriously contemplated. The Police had grossly overreacted to what was no more than a bit of harmless play-acting. The only people terrified by Operation Eight were the traumatised Māori residents of Ruatoki. Those in serious search of terrorism need look no further than the racist and colonialist depredations of the New Zealand state.
They all laughed at Police Commissioner Howard Broad and his damned-if-he-did, damned-if-he-didn’t, predicament. The nation’s politicians, however, were quick to draw the obvious lessons.
What the Urewera debacle made clear was that not only will intervention before the fact of a terrorist attack expose the national security apparatus – and its political masters – to the ruthless excoriation of the Far Left, but also, crucially, to serious criticism from the news media. As the Far left critics of “Operation Eight” proved, pre-emptive policing is all-too-easily presented as the action of a “police state” over-eager to put its new-found powers to the test.
Small wonder, then, that both major parties became extremely wary of displaying too much interest in correcting the all-too-obvious defects in the Terrorism Suppression Act.
How differently New Zealanders might have responded to “Operation Eight’s” videos of armed individuals moving stealthily through the Urewera bush if they had been recorded subsequent to the terrible events of 15 March 2019. By then, of course, the notion that domestic terrorism was a bit of a joke had been tragically and decisively dispelled. Fortunately for the Left, those twelve-year-old Urewera images had been largely forgotten – along with the Far Left’s insistence that they conveyed nothing sinister.
Indeed, within days of the Christchurch Mosque Massacre, the Far Left’s position had changed dramatically. Not only was the threat of terrorism dangerously real, but it was also latent in a colonialist Pakeha population fatally tainted with both the legacy and the actuality of “white supremacy”. The cry from the Far Left, now, was not that the national security apparatus was too heavy handed, but that it was not heavy-handed enough. Why had the SIS not subjected the Alt-Right and militant ethno-nationalist groups to the same oppressive surveillance it reserved for Muslims?
The Māori Party demanded to know why the Police and the SIS weren’t working together to root out the white supremacist threat. Radical leftists called for the curtailment of “hate speech” – especially against New Zealand’s Muslim population. The Labour Government promised to oblige.
Which was odd. Because long before Brenton Tarrant unleashed terror in Christchurch, Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen had been giving the government of Jacinda Ardern nightmares. Ever since 2016, three years before Tarrant’s attack, New Zealand’s national security apparatus had been grappling with the clear and present danger of a dangerously radicalised Islamist who made no secret of his support for and admiration of the actions of the murderous Islamic State. If Tarrant slipped past the SIS, GCSB and Police Intelligence watchers, it was for the very good reason that they had another predator in their sights. What’s more, they could not be absolutely sure that Samsudeen was the only Isis-inspired “lone wolf” in the forest.
George and Ira Gershwin’s 1937 hit, “They All laughed”, concludes with the lines:
Hee, hee, hee!
Let’s at the past laugh
Ha, ha, ha!
Who’s got the last laugh now?
Faced with the Left’s cynical gyrations on the subject of terrorism, and whether or not it poses a threat to ordinary New Zealanders (like Muslims at Friday prayers, or the seven unsuspecting Kiwis stabbed in the aisles of their local supermarket as they innocently shopped for groceries on a Friday afternoon) the answer to the question “Who’s got the last laugh, now?” offers a variety of answers.
First and foremost, the last laugh belongs to those who, fourteen years ago, attempted to protect the New Zealand public from terrorism, only to discover that, in the absence of the evidence only an actual terrorist atrocity can supply, the ability of the national security apparatus to pre-empt such horror is legally and politically compromised. Indeed, even in the aftermath of an all-too-real terrorist attack, the judicial and bureaucratic machinery of the state proved criminally inadequate to the task of keeping New Zealanders safe.
Also entitled to a final, grim chuckle, are those stalwarts of the Left who never wavered in their conviction that the infliction of violence for political purposes must never be treated as a purely tactical issue. The Far Left’s argument that: in one context, training with weapons in the bush can be forgiven as harmless play-acting; but, in another, treated as evidence of the criminal plans and preparations of murderous white supremacist terrorists; must be rejected as ideologically-driven moral relativism of the worst kind.
Finally, a rough grunt of vindication is due to all those who have argued consistently that no matter what the location: Central Christchurch or New Lynn; the paying of History’s debts with innocent blood is always and everywhere a crime.
But, when these principled New Zealanders laugh at the Far Left’s tawdry equivocations on who is, and who isn’t, a terrorist; that laughter will not be light or mirthful. It will be hollow, filled with rage, and mixed with tears.
I still do not understand why he could be not held under Mental Health Grounds the man was clearly not well, he had just broken a prison officers jaw ?
Something is seriously not right somewhere.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/terrorist-couldnt-be-detained-under-mental-health-act-after-he-refused-psychological-assessment-legal-expert/F24F7JHRB3IPC6V5IRN774MPW4/
Under existing law, he apparently has the right to refuse assessment in line with the Bill of Rights and the Mental Health Act.
not quite true…many refuse and if there is ANY concern about imminent intent ;risk to self and others AND evidence unable to attend to basic life needs. then a Duly Authorised officer of mental health Act, can after careful consideration of evidence commence compulsion for assessment by a Psychiatrist with police support if required.
My thoughts exactly. This was a sick man, who had been though trauma to get here in the first instance, and did not get the mental and emotional support needed, just more alienation.
Great column Chris!
Oh and I am reliably informed there are about 40 other individuals in the same category as Samsudeen.
So watch this space!
Can you please be more specific about the source for your “40 other individuals” claim?
I know some people 😉
Well, TDB readers are blessed indeed to have State Security insiders like Andrew sharing their top level reliable tips with us!
The terror assessment level is medium. 40 seems about right.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-mall-terrorist-forged-medical-documents-boasted-about-duping-immigration-officials/P4TXIN7YOI2OENGEKTWRCV2AD4/
It shows how easy it is to forge documents to get into NZ, this person arrived on a student visa – he stopped his student course after 1 month in NZ and refused to leave using forged documents. The IPT repeatedly kept him in the country with multiple appeals against other government departments recommendations such as police and immigration officials.
“The New Lynn mall terrorist forged medical records and statements from his family to bolster his claim for refugee status, which was revoked later when the bogus documents were discovered by police investigating his support for Islamic State.
And a former workmate of the 32-year-old, who stabbed and wounded several shoppers at a New Lynn supermarket on Friday, says he would boast about duping immigration officials.
“New Zealand Government don’t know about my visa,” the ex-colleague said the would-be terrorist told him.”
“His original claim for asylum was rejected by Immigration New Zealand (INZ), but Samsudeen was successful in appealing the decision to the Immigration Protection Tribunal (IPT) in December 2013.
Among his claims, Samsudeen said he and his father were attacked, kidnapped and tortured because of their political background in Sri Lanka and while the IPT considered aspects of his account were “superficially unsatisfactory”, the panel thought he was credible.”
“During the review of the individual’s refugee status, it was established that the documentation he had submitted in his refugee claim was fraudulent. This was on the basis that evidence found on his laptop by police indicated the individual had manufactured written statements from family members in support of his claim and embellished a medical report to align with his claims,” a spokesperson for INZ confirmed in a written statement to Herald questions.”
Sadly when government officials try to do their jobs and deport fraudsters, the IPT seems to be the go to (funded by taxpayers) to keep violent criminals and fraudsters in NZ. 1/3 of the immigration officials recommendations are overturned by the IPT. The process also keeps the applicants free in NZ for years to continue to victimise others and laugh at the NZ hobbit system of justice, while all the various lengthy, expensive, appeals are heard.
Absolutely. We are too soft and we are being used.
The other concern is that it becomes a catch 22, if a person declares they are affiliated to ISIS, then they can probably then claim they should be a ‘protected person’ as most countries don’t want these people operating freely in their countries. Do we want this to become the standard way to stay in NZ, student visa, followed by joining ISIS (or some other violation), makes you a protected person?
Maybe letting him board the plane to Singapore and join ISIS, would have been the best for his human rights after all?
Not sure the answer of allowing him to attempt to kill ‘kiwi scums’ in NZ is any less of a human right violation to others, than putting him in prison for most of his life in NZ due to his beliefs, than letting him go on his merry way to help ISIS as he wanted to years before.
As well as the danger he posed, allowing this type of person to abuse the NZ system, taking housing and resources in NZ from more deserving people who either want to be here, or have nowhere else to go as Kiwi citizens here.
Likewise questions should be asked (but won’t) how a celebrity refugee who claims refuge in OZ, then can come to NZ on a literary conference and reclaim refugee status here. Isn’t the law you have can only claim asylum in the first place you claim it?, now we have people cherry picking the asylum system, who are personally picked up by the Greens (and fellow dual citizen Iranian) at the airport. Seems to be misusing the refugee system and setting more and more precedents, against those who really need it.
Not directly related to the.latest incidence of ‘ terrorism’ but highly indicative of how socieety has been (and still is) manipulated comes the massive u-turn reported on interest.co.nz:
‘And we should note that News Corp, long obsessed with the ABC in Australia, has done an about-face after years of casting doubt on climate change and attacking politicians and other media who favoured corrective action, are now planning an editorial campaign advocating a carbon-neutral future! They are sensing they have lost this ‘conservative battle’. This will leave its ‘after-dark’ commentators high-and-dry in Australia, with only anti-vaxxing Covid-denial left to prosecute.’
So it goes. Vested interest, incompetence and denial of reality are prime driver’s of policy.
I’ve never understood why the Urawera lot were dismissed so casually. Full blown weapons training and spouting ethno nationalist dogma is just not a normal hobby. Didn’t some of them go on to plant “bombs” in a Wellington cinema aimed at terrorising the theatre goers. These religious fundamentalist, neo tribalist and “blood and soil” types, including the Maori ethno nationalists should be taken seriously.
People say all sorts of things (to be provocative perhaps?) so it’s not always possible to sort out the genuinely dangerous from words alone. Making actual threats of, and preparing plans for, violence would be a giant red flag you would think.
Opinions are not evidence. If it is believed that a terrorist attack was limited by supplies to expand the brutality, then please, collect the evidence in real time and why you think that. If you don’t have any evidence then real time surveillance isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, and you should reconsider your stance on that opinion, like maybe even without the Eastern front you couldn’t appreciably increase the Afrika Korps to defeat the combined American British forces in the region.
Peeeowwww!!…and its a ricochet from our long distance columnist.
Blaming the “Far Left” seriously for anything in 2021, or ’07, is laughable, particularly given the author’s cyclical disparagement of ‘ageing marxist greybeards’ lamenting over their beer!
Fortunately there is still a small (and diverse) cohort of people in NZ society with the skill and courage to tackle issues like Nicky Hager’s Police break in, Jon Stephensons victimisation by NZ Defence, Armed Police squads in South Auckland streets, and yes the raid on Ruatoki. By the way, neo Nazis have held training camps with arms in the South Island too, without an Operation Eight style raid being involved as far as I know.
The State Security forces, terrorism, and legislation are nuanced–no crude one size fits all argument or answer exists. So questioning the SIS etc. for their lack of attention to white supremacists is not contradictory to suspicion of the state overdoing things in terms of “Minority Report” style thought crimes–(detaining people for what they might do, or what they say, or read).
Chris 100%…..I so totally agree with you.
I was always amazed how the politicially correct thing to think about the Urewera episode was Cops picking on the left (which I conside rmyself to be). I am glad you have brough it up again in the context of how things have unfolded.
Great column Chris. As usual the far left take all sorts of positions depending on their politics.
This is the same as the Maori Party wanting a stasi of sorts against white supremacy.
Chris, in the 1990s SAS trainers were teaching far right political groups to use automatic weapons in combat situations. You do not see that as a problem, because they were folk of your own ethnicity and political persuasion. Our people have always claimed the right of self defence and that is not going to change, so you will just have to get used to the idea. Terrorism is a different story. Terrorism is actually the kind of conduct in which you were engaged in Afghanistan. Pulling people out of their houses in the middle of the night and summarily executing them. We reject terrorism. You don’t. That is where we differ.
Just who is this ‘Far Left’ anyway? And what do they stand for? Against?
Can somebody divulge please.
Asking for myself
An answer: a pet scapegoat.
Maybe the powers that be could’ve used the health and safety act to remove the terrorist from society. He was obviously a known potential hazard to police ?
I don’t appreciate your literary device of hanging this issue around the Gershwin poem, and it isn’t clear what exactly you are saying here either or who the far left are that have upset you, some would think you did in fact represent that part of their spectrum. Nevertheless if you are ultimately saying guns should not be in the community and any paramilitary groups banned, I would agree.