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.
-
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
So for all the talk from Jacinda about hate speech laws to prevent terrorism, the actual law change that can work wasn't prioritised? What the fuck?
That wouldn't get praise from the global media. Much more effective to focus on banning guns and hate speech
-
@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.
As opposed to two years later.
The world still needs to have conversations about racism and white supremacy, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Monday, as the country marked two years since a white supremacist attacked two mosques in the city of Christchurch. -
@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.
-
@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.
We'd certainly hear about his ideology and beliefs if he was a fascist white guy.
-
@booboo 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.
We'd certainly hear about his ideology and beliefs if he was a fascist white guy.
Actually typed (or meant to tyoe) racist... but auto correct after typo ... still works
-
What I'd like to know is whether this guy was attending and participating in any organized religious activities, and then, of course, the extent to which they were aware and cognizant of his ideas (and potential for action).
I agree with @No-Quarter and think that an interesting story here would be to point out that if you are an institution in NZ, were you in any way ignoring any potential danger signs?
I'd feel the same way whether the perpetrator was a crazy christian or a crazy muslim, and I think most kiwis would. Only to have a functioning press I guess.
-
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
What I'd like to know is whether this guy was attending and participating in any organized religious activities, and then, of course, the extent to which they were aware and cognizant of his ideas (and potential for action).
I agree with @No-Quarter and think that an interesting story here would be to point out that if you are an institution in NZ, were you in any way ignoring any potential danger signs?
I'd feel the same way whether the perpetrator was a crazy christian or a crazy muslim, and I think most kiwis would. Only to have a functioning press I guess.
Why on earth would that be done? It's not religious mate, it's just a nutter. No research should be done anything to do with his religious movements as it's not a faith thing.
That's basically what Cindy is saying.
-
@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.
There’s no failure of intelligence or operations here. It’s legal swots in the courts vs legal swots writing the legislation. -
@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. 🤔
-
@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.
There’s no failure of intelligence or operations here. It’s 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:
There’s no failure of intelligence or operations here. It’s 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 don’t get made because the writers are adamant that they have it correct.
It’s 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 don’t get made because the writers are adamant that they have it correct.
It’s 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 don’t get made because the writers are adamant that they have it correct.
It’s words.While I get that frustrating legal merry-go-round in general, in this case I’m 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. 🤔
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".