Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

27 Comments

  1. I agree with this Frank. There will be official court records of all that transpires available to interested parties, the court will be open to the public as it should be but there’s no need to go further than that.
    D J S

  2. Frank, you are absolutely correct here in this instance. I think that the court will appoint a lawyer at the trial to try and stop any mischief he wants to do. There is also the third step which you’ve missed. It’s called the Martin Bryant paradox. He knows very well that the government must now expend resources and efforts into keeping him alive. He cannot be killed in custody without turning him into a martyr. He can play with that for a while.

  3. I don’t think statements such as “This is New Zealand’s darkest day” are helpful either no matter how well intentioned, it just sets a level of hate for other sick people to aspire to or exceed (not to mention disregarding the losses in our colonial past, the world wars, or in events such as Tangiwai, Erebus or Wahine).

    1. Where is the phrase “This is New Zealand’s darkest day” used, Jody? I don’t believe it’s anywhere in my writing above.

      Do you have any thoughts on anything else I’ve written?

      1. Agree + 100% Erebus 278 Dead, with a DC10 plane driven directly into a mountain ?

        1. Jody & Ngungukai, not to take anything away from the grief of those 2 disasters but theres a huge difference between a natural or seminatural disaster, and a deliberate act if mass murder. Youre both conflating different tragedies. One was by the act of a white supremicist terrorist, the others were tragic accidents. The only similarities is that the loss if life from ALL events was tragic for families

          None if which relates to what Frank has written and explained to us with great clarity

          He’s raised string points NOT to film the (admittedly alledged) terrorist, or btoadcast his voice or report his words directly. He’s also rejected secret trials, which I thouroughly agree with

          Great blogpodt, lets hope the judiciary listens

    2. One of your best blogposts Frank. A clear insightful look at how white supremacists crave power and the apologists who defend or minimise their cold blooded violence.

      Let’s hope the killer doesn’t get the attention he craves.

  4. Originally I had thought that closed court with no media would be an option but maybe this approach would be better. Can our media, govt, or courts control the international media though? Maybe international media could be banned and they’d have to get their coverage through local media and so deny this platform. I’m not sure how that works, but the US Military managed it to a degree with their ’embedded’ journalists only showing them what they wanted the world to see.

  5. Meanwhile the 7 yr old in the house asked me this morning if we good get the shooting game from Christchurch, his mother had shown him on her ‘smart phone’

  6. NZ MSM absolute rubbish enabling pure white hatred, no compassion what so ever ?

  7. As Michael Wynd said, the court will appoint a lawyer so what Tarrant says will be controlled. I heard a lawyer on RNZ explaining this lawyer’s role so you need to check on this. Good of you to advise the judges but I think they’ve got it covered.

    My comments on other posts:I assumed Jody is writing about the general discussion in media coverage of the massacre.

    And Bruce, the inquiry from the 7 year old is horrifying. My sympathies to you for having to answer it.

    1. “Good of you to advise the judges but I think they’ve got it covered”

      Is that an official comment from the NZ Law Society? A bit arrogant, isnt it Janet

    2. “Good of you to advise the judges but I think they’ve got it covered.”

      I hope so, Ms Beddgood. The Weatherston trial did not engender much confidence in the system to prevent grand standing.

  8. Frank, you acknowledge the difference between Weatherston and Tarrant, W. did not have support from his audience. His vile behaviour was unlikely to spread. You’re right that it was horrible to endure his self justification. But this is avoiding my advice.

    Have you checked the role of the court appointed lawyer?

    [Janio/Dr Beddgood, please use only one pseudonym in this forum. Thank you. – Scarletmod]

    1. “W. did not have support from his audience. His vile behaviour was unlikely to spread.”

      I believe that is what I wrote.

      I also contrasted Weatherston’s audience with that of McVeigh, Breivik, et al.

  9. A timely blogpost Frank. The last thing we need is for a white supremacist to be given a platform and his vile ideology of hate broadcast throughout NZ and the rest of the world. Giving him a platform will enable the next killer somewhere in the world.

    Will those who yell free speech the loudest be crying tears when the next far right killer is motivated by the Australian mass-shooter (I will not say his name) to carry out his own killing spree?

    It defies understanding that some people are so blindly adherent to this notion of “free speech” that they cannot see the threat posed.

    The Australian does NOT deserve a platform. His appearance in court should NOT be televised or radio broadcast. His words should be filtered to remove meaning to other far right thigs.

    His voice should be muted as he muted the voices of his 50 victims.

  10. AH HA!! Thought so.

    The very question I just posed to Liz Gordon underneath this post, if it goes up.

    “The question is, given all the censorship, will there be a closed court?”

    Your drawing some very long bows here Frank. Full of holes.

    And pulling the emotions card, as well as having a cheap go at Infowars.

    It’s the same logic others put up. We should be able to decide for ourselves
    whether he’s crazed or not and his message exposing the Official Narrative.

    Censure only increases the attention as is shown his numbers have surged
    again after the Twitter censor, just as it did after the You-tube de-platform.

    What your proposing here is more censorship and space for more deception,
    more propaganda and lies.

    MSM and it’s reporters have proved time and time again that they can’t be trusted.

    The whole world knows this now Frank, unless your target is the aged.

    I suggest the “administrator(s) “ and TPTB know full well he knows their game.

    ALL murderers, other criminals and fraudsters can influence the odd lost soul.

    Should we shut down all courts? Of course not.

    My post went up on Trotter’s article about Authoritarian Gvts.

    This is what they continually do all the time.

    DEFEND THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE at all costs.!!

    Cheers.

    1. If my article is “full of holes”, Iain, feel free to point out where.

      Your question “Should we shut down all courts?” is ludicrous on the grounds I made no such suggestion. It has come from your own mind.

      I put it to you, Iain, that your constant posts supporting the alt.right explains your agenda.

      I stand by my story.

      1. It is just plain common sense, Frank.

        “People are more confident of each other and their leaders when there is no room left for conspiracy theories, when nothing is hidden,” Stephen Franks, a constitutional lawyer and spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, told AP. “The damage and risks are greater from suppressing these things than they are from trusting people to form their own conclusions and to see evil or madness for what it is.”

        https://www.rt.com/news/454640-new-zealand-free-speech-censorship/

        Conversations are going on overseas suggesting that when
        Governments are going to these lengths to censor and shut down debate, it usually indicates there may be something to hide.
        Authoritarian seemed to be a key word.

        “Christchurch used to silence questioning on global scale” Is an another headline.

        Transparency is what’s needed. Just like Norway.

        “The Great Replacement,” is the name of the Manifesto.

        Go figure.

        1. “Transparency is what’s needed. Just like Norway.”

          Perhaps you should read what Frank actually wrote instead of misrepresenting his views. He said:

          “Yet, conducting the trial in secret is also not a solution.

          Secrecy breeds suspicion. It would give birth to a host of mind-numbingly tedious conspiracy theories. Salient information about his actions would be lost. It would create dangerous legal precedent.”

          Youre so eager to stick your oar in Iain that you dont actually take in what another person has said

    2. @Iain, sorry, but none of your post makes any sense. You certainly haven’t actually addressed any of the critical issues raised in this blogpost. Whether Frank is right or wrong, he’s put a pretty convincing case to be circumspect in reporting the terrorist’s (ok, ALLEGED terrorist) trial.

      There’s a strong case for not giving the terrorist a platform. If he motivates another disgruntled white supremacist to commit another act of atrocity, doesn’t that make us responsible? I think it does.

      If you’re going to comment on something Iain, make it about the issue. Whatever bee you have in your Bonnet about the author Is between you and him.

Comments are closed.