New Lynn knife attack
-
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. π€
-
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@sparky said in New Lynn knife attack:
What a dickhead. Hats off to the police who shot him.
I hope all the injured pull through. Grateful to their medical care.
A review of public security and screening of other, potential terrorists by the NZ government is urgent.
Why? They know who these people are and thought they had the legislation to stop them but have been rebuffed by the courts when it was used.
Thereβs no failure of intelligence or operations here. Itβs legal swots in the courts vs legal swots writing the legislation.Wholeheartedly agree with this. He was clearly at the top of their NatSec list so the issue isn't with him not being identified like Tarrant, the PM had been briefed on him. The failure is with the legal framework. I expect eventual kneejerk from this is a 501 style law where high level sign off can turf someone from our country, plus more restrictive laws around detaining people who might be planning attacks.
-
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
Thereβs no failure of intelligence or operations here. Itβs legal swots in the courts vs legal swots writing the legislation.
Locking someone up before they do something illegal is really really really hard, and goes against absolute fundamentals of justice.
This guy sounds a genuine fluffybunny, and having 24/7 surveillance is staggering, but the courts have obviously come down on the right to not be locked up for being a risk. I don't like the outcome here, but I can understand the reasoning.
-
The Terror Supression Act 2002 has been known to be problematic going at least as far back as the aftermath of the Urewera raids in 2007.
I don't think there's a particular issue of judges being cautious - they can only work with the law as it is, not what it aspired to be. Successive lawmakers and politicians have failed to amend or replace a complete mess of an Act with a version that law enforcement and the courts can actually use as intended. The outcome is events like yesterday.
-
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
The Terror Supression Act 2002 has been known to be problematic going at least as far back as the Urewera raids in 2007.
I don't think there's a particular issue of judges being cautious - they can only work with the law as it is, not what it aspired to be. Successive lawmakers and politicians have failed to amend or replace a complete mess of an Act with a version that law enforcement and the courts can actually use as intended. The outcome is events like yesterday.
What gets me though is that the lawmakers/politicians use legal eagles to write what they want to achieve then a different bunch disagree with how it is written. It becomes academic arguments and in some cases changes donβt get made because the writers are adamant that they have it correct.
Itβs words. -
The other thing around terrorist attacks, as abhorrent as they are, is that they disproportionately put fear into the public and the subsequent security and law reform response is disproportionate compared to the level of death they (generally) cause.
For example, as a male between 20 and 40, you're far more likely to killed as a result of random stranger violence than as a result of a terrorist attack, yet appetite for a coward punch law reform is still limited or non-existent. Or as a female or child you're exponentially more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner or family member than a terrorist.
Not saying it doesn't mean we should make our terrorism laws watertight, because we absolutely should, and the public should rightly be irritated that this legal loophole existed. But I remember reading a statistic while writing an essay for my masters, about the billions of dollars America spends on airport security, and the amount of lost productivity due to this additional security as a direct result of 9/11 and the shoe bomber. Yet more US citizen die in a couple of months of any given year from gun crime than cumulatively have from terror attacks in the past 30 years.
Sadly, some members of society will be more fearful of minority groups as a result of yesterday's attack, but that fear is generally misplaced, based on known stats.
-
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
The Terror Supression Act 2002 has been known to be problematic going at least as far back as the Urewera raids in 2007.
I don't think there's a particular issue of judges being cautious - they can only work with the law as it is, not what it aspired to be. Successive lawmakers and politicians have failed to amend or replace a complete mess of an Act with a version that law enforcement and the courts can actually use as intended. The outcome is events like yesterday.
What gets me though is that the lawmakers/politicians use legal eagles to write what they want to achieve then a different bunch disagree with how it is written. It becomes academic arguments and in some cases changes donβt get made because the writers are adamant that they have it correct.
Itβs words.There was an article on stuff this morning (can't work out how to put a screenshot in on my phone) saying the law was at select committee stage with support of the major parties except Greens and the Maori party. Would certainly be interested in their reasons for vetoing it, with the obvious benefit of hindsight. That said, the article also went on the say that about 6 or 7 years ago, Judith Collins, when Nats were in power said there was nothing wrong with the law. Be hard for any political grandstanding either way.
-
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
The Terror Supression Act 2002 has been known to be problematic going at least as far back as the Urewera raids in 2007.
I don't think there's a particular issue of judges being cautious - they can only work with the law as it is, not what it aspired to be. Successive lawmakers and politicians have failed to amend or replace a complete mess of an Act with a version that law enforcement and the courts can actually use as intended. The outcome is events like yesterday.
What gets me though is that the lawmakers/politicians use legal eagles to write what they want to achieve then a different bunch disagree with how it is written. It becomes academic arguments and in some cases changes donβt get made because the writers are adamant that they have it correct.
Itβs words.While I get that frustrating legal merry-go-round in general, in this case Iβm not sure that we should cut the relevant lawdrafters/politicians over the years as much slack. Given the age of the Act, issues being well known, and a Judge even giving them a case-specific heads up last year. (Specifically this case, tragically).
-
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
Be hard for any political grandstanding either way.
oh, my sides
-
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. π€
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
-
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. π€
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
Those nuts are delicious. Can get through a can in one sitting. Oh wait thatβs wasabi. Carry on.
-
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. π€
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
To the letter? The original prophet didn't read or write!
From what I've read the Wahhabi is considered extreme by non-Saudi Arabian muslim..https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wahhabi -
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. π€
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
Then say that he represent Wahabbi.
That's how other fundamentalist/interpretive groups are referred to.I'm simply trying to explain why it's important not to make sweeping statements that include innocent people.
It is an ideology that finds a justification within a faith. Just as those that hold extreme christian views do. -
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
The Terror Supression Act 2002
Usually when there are major amendments, it would be come the Terror Supression Act 2015 (or whenever) wouldnt it?
Assuming it is still the same act from 2002, an awful lot has changed in our world since then, particularly when it comes to these extremist groups and thier actions, surely if it is still the same act from 2002, it is in need or a serious overhaul?
-
@taniwharugby said in New Lynn knife attack:
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
The Terror Supression Act 2002
Usually when there are major amendments, it would be come the Terror Supression Act 2015 wouldnt it?
Assuming it is still the same act from 2002, an awful lot has changed in our world since then, particularly when it comes to these extremist groups and thier actions, surely if it is still the same act from 2002, it is in need or a serious overhaul?
Still formally 2002: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0034/latest/DLM152702.html
-
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. π€
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
What I hate about this and other attacks is the silence from the broader Muslim community. If he isn't connected to you, or his actions are not condoned by you, then why doesn't every Muslim leader come out and say exactly that, publicly and in the strongest way?
Are they afraid of repercussions? I can understand if they are, but wow if that doesn't highlight the problem.
-
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. π€
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
Then say that he represent Wahabbi.
That's how other fundamentalist/interpretive groups are referred to.I'm simply trying to explain why it's important not to make sweeping statements that include innocent people.
It is an ideology that finds a justification within a faith. Just as those that hold extreme christian views do.Yes!! 100%, the statement from Jacinda that it doesn't represent any faith is also an idiotic sweeping statement.
Edit - it would also be worth her adding that the majority of Muslims from ME in NZ are here because they were fleeing groups like ISIS, as the biggest victims of Islamic extremism, by a country mile, is Muslims that don't practice Islam "the right way".
It's fine to deal in facts, she doesn't have to treat NZers like idiots. She's either doing that or she's a complete idiot herself.
-
@voodoo said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. π€
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
What I hate about this and other attacks is the silence from the broader Muslim community. If he isn't connected to you, or his actions are not condoned by you, then why doesn't every Muslim leader come out and say exactly that, publicly and in the strongest way?
Are they afraid of repercussions? I can understand if they are, but wow if that doesn't highlight the problem.
In fairness Al Noor Mosque has done this:
-
@nostrildamus said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. π€
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
To the letter? The original prophet didn't read or write!
From what I've read the Wahhabi is considered extreme by non-Saudi Arabian muslim..https://www.britannica.com/topic/WahhabiHah well yeah that's a turn of phrase. And yes it is, the majority of Mulsims don't follow it, though SA has been trying to export it around the world as much as they can.
-
@voodoo said in New Lynn knife attack:
What I hate about this and other attacks is the silence from the broader Muslim community. If he isn't connected to you, or his actions are not condoned by you, then why doesn't every Muslim leader come out and say exactly that, publicly and in the strongest way?
Are they afraid of repercussions? I can understand if they are, but wow if that doesn't highlight the problem.
Most feel and know it - but how are they meant to do it? Should the Imam of every single mosque in the country cold call the local newspaper and ask them to write a story about their disgust? At which point, people will presumably come out and accuse Muslims of turning themselves into victims?
I'm a staunch atheist and one of my best friends is a devout Muslim. He's Fijian Indian, has lived in NZ since he was very young, is an avid Warriors and sports fan, and aside from regular mosque visits and prayers, not drinking alcohol and eating halal meat, he lives a not too dissimilar life to me. He's a mechanic by trade, a family man, coaches his kids sports teams etc. When I was a student, his Mum used to invite us round for Eid celebrations and used to send containers of food regularly to our flat, because she wanted to make sure we were well nourished and looked after when living away from home. They were an incredibly warm and generous family.
We spoke on the phone last night and he was devastated - firstly and most obviously for the senseless violence perpetrated under the name of his religion and also because it's gonna be another lightning rod for parts of society to hate Islam as a whole, so he's fearful of what repercussions might come toward mosques and Muslims in the coming days. It's a fallacy to assume that the default is that mosques and the wider Islamic community are hiding or condoning this kind of extremist behaviour.
Does he have to come out on social media and denounce it so that everyone knows he is against it? Or can we just make the logical assumption that as a rational person who is part of the "broader community" he doesn't stand for what the dead terrorist stands for?