world

New Zealand mosque killings spark debate over free speech

85 Comments
By NICK PERRY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


85 Comments
Login to comment

10 years in prison for reading something.

Way too far.

Why do terror attacks mean that we have to change our societies into the Soviet Union.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Those are just the maximum sentences for objectionable material in general....... It's not like NZders are being threatened with 10 years if they read the manifesto. That would be different.

And you can understand why the authorities don't want it shared.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Don’t people have the right to make up their own minds about what is right or wrong?

How will we evolve to be better or worse without utilizing our facilities of comprehension and communication?

Should we ban Mein Kampf too?

After all, we could argue that Hitler’s actions were the cause of many more deaths than Brenton Tarrant’s.

Well, having read the writings, there are areas which cause the reader to reflect on matters which are not being mentioned in the media at all.

We should be looking at and discussing openly the causes of extremism and what to do to counter the destructive effects thereof.

However, that is not occurring and people like Tarrant are coming to the fore.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

I think it's a shame that the terrorist gets so much publicity.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

@Toasted Heretic

Publicity is not really the relevant point here, is it?

However, warped his reasons were for the attacks and killings were, is not the issue.

The issue is that our right to know is being taken away.And seeking such information or possessing it is criminalized- that is a worrying precedent!

6 ( +10 / -4 )

In the US, the ban would be an struck down as a violation of our 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Outta curiosity, I wonder how you all feel. Lets take a poll:

Uprate this comment if you think the NZ ban goes to far; downrate if you think the ban is ok.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

@blacksabbath

In the US, the ban would be an struck down as a violation of our 1st Amendment right to free speech

How would that happen? In the US would Tarrant sue the Censor. Why would the courts allow it. A mass murderer's right to free speech. Why bother having a Censor.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Freedom of speech is not under attack, hate speech is.

Words have consequences. The people of NZ know this. My own country knows this.

By all means, publish the demented terrorists ramblings but don't be surprised as it replicates and proliferates all over the internet like a virus.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

@Black Sabbath

Uprate this comment if you think the NZ ban goes to far;

To me it's not a question/debate as to whether any ban has gone too far.

I would rather the debate considers context, who is saying it, what is said and how it is disseminated.

Remember the USA already have limits on free speech, eg defamation laws where you can be held to account for much less harmful statements than some of the things right wing politicians have been saying (where the defaming affects an entire group of people, not just one person).

I think we are seeing 'ban' as a knee jerk reaction because there are people (corporate execs, politicians, loonies) who fears that if the public understand the issues too well, it will be harder or impossible for them to exploit the situation.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

@toastedheretic

Freedom of speech is not under attack, hate speech is.

Yes, I should have wrote "a mass murderer's right to hate speech." Not free speech.

@kiruspisu

And what is the basis for a "right to know" in relation to his hate speech?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Watch this law spread to include other things the NZ government doesn’t like.

It’s a very slippery slope.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Watch this law spread to include other things the NZ government doesn’t like.

What's to like about terrorism?

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

How depressingly predictable it is that liberals would use the actions of this maniac to clamp down on freedom of speech.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

NZ is following the western European trend. Limiting freedom of speech. The nanny state decides what is ok for its citizens to read. Shameful.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

How depressingly predictable it is that liberals would use the actions of this maniac to clamp down on freedom of speech.

How depressingly predictable that the far right are in favor of hate speech and its consequences.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

@Bungle,

I agree.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

You have to admit it was depressingly predictable that someone would come out with "the 1st amendment"

You Americans are amusing.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

You Americans are amusing.

Not all are spreading the cancer of hate, tbf.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

I read the whole thing and thought that 80% of it was fairly 'mainstream' tbh, which is probably what worries govts. They know very well that a substantial number of ppl (10% to 30% perhaps, depending on the country) have similar views & discussions on a daily basis and that even fringe/not particularly nationalistic ppl would identify with some of Tarrant's ideas and possibly take his manifesto as 'advice', which is the worrying/dangerous part i guess.

As an example, the bloke had traveled a fair bit and said that he respected and even 'liked' other cultures (turkey, pakistan etc), just didnt want to mix with them as they were 'too different'. That's why he, imo, is a communitarian ethno-nationalist rather than a white supremacist per se, and again that's what worries most govts. Nothing worse than a bloke saying 'the ppl i met in pakistan, turkey etc were great, warm and friendly, just don't want them in my own country".

Personally, i wish ppl could read/hear his manifesto then discuss/debunk his ideas (or not) but society has been dumbed down so much that we probably can't have this discussion. Just too risky i guess.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

The far right are people who favor the terrorist and his manifesto, under the guise of freedom of speech.

Man, you have to focus on your writing. You may have something to say, but it’s sometimes hard to make it out.

“... favor ... under the guise of freedom of speech”? Wouldn’t “praise”, “support”, “defend” or “promote” be better?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The issue is that our right to know is being taken away.And seeking such information or possessing it is criminalized- that is a worrying precedent!

Yes, a very worrying precedent. The far right will not be defeated by measures like this. One of their narratives is the authoritarian left are enemies of freedom and this just adds fuel to the fire. This is a breeding ground for the worst kind of conspiracy theories.

liberals

Don’t throw liberals in the same bin as the authoritarian left. I regard myself as liberal/left but I have no time for the authoritarian left.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Don’t throw liberals in the same bin as the authoritarian left. I regard myself as liberal/left but I have no time for the authoritarian left.

It's disingenuous for either side to define the entire other side by the actions of their extremists.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Why is it ok to read the most graphic details about the holocaust and Hitler but no it’s agaist the law to read about this? Both topics show how low human beings will stoop and should be there for us to see so we have an accurate history and never repeat.

Freedom of speech is probably the most important thing we used to have!

7 ( +8 / -1 )

The Islamists are indeed the far right.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

I want to read what this killer wrote. Ive heard from a few sources that were able to see it that it demonstrates that in manyways he in fact leans to the left.

Isthis why its banned?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

We are all for condemning Tarrant’s opinions and ideas but we should focus more on his violent actions.

The New Zealand government has decided to do both.

Confiscating repeat action firearms or banning them is one understandable action but banning ideas and opinions is altogether a different one.

That is a very dangerous precedent which in the past has been responsible for millions of murders....

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The Islamists are indeed the far right.

Where are the white nationalists? Standing next to the islamists?

Islamists and white nationalists are two groups whose ideologies need to be shredded. Both are corrosive and dangerous.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Islamists and white nationalists are two groups whose ideologies need to be shredded.

This is just about the lost disgustigly offensive false equivalence I have had the misfortune to read in a very long time.

Hang your head in shame.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Where are the white nationalists? Standing next to the islamists?

Yes, indeed. The Islamists and white nationalists are side by side if you think they both would control the lives of women and murder gays and non-Muslims. However, your “white nationalists” are actually not as extreme as the Islamists. Some white nationalists promote separation of races, not the extermination of some. In that they are no more extreme than the Nation of Islam (the “Black Muslims”) which has been recently praised by some Congresswomen.

So, “Where are the white nationalists?” you ask? They are standing considerably to the left of the Islamists. Their ideas are not worthy of respect, but still relatively farther left.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

This is just about the lost disgustigly offensive false equivalence I have had the misfortune to read in a very long time.

Why are you so offended?

White nationalism is corrosive and dangerous.

Islamism is corrosive and dangerous.

Which one are you defensive about?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Why are you so offended?

White nationalism is corrosive and dangerous. 

Islamism is corrosive and dangerous.

Weasel words.

While your argument is of course superficially seductive, it completely overlooks quantities of scale.

Your argument is no more meaningful than someone saying “Speeding is dangerous, so are lions, therefore we should condemn both speeding drivers and lions.”

1 ( +7 / -6 )

You can argue some Islamists are not as extreme as some white nationalists. Many, even the majority, of Islamists ( I’m working with the definition of someone who believes in public and political life should be guided by Islamic principles ) believe in non-violent means to install their system of government and don’t believe in separation by religion. I’d take a non-violent Islamist over a white nationalist going berserk with an assault weapon. and a white nationalist hating other races at home over an Islamist going berserk with an assault weapon.

There are obviously shades in the beliefs of these two groups, but both should be shredded.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

While your argument is of course superficially seductive, it completely overlooks quantities of scale.

We can do the bookkeeping if you like, see which group is responsible for the most mayhem, and even focus more attention on the worst offenders.

It still adds up to the conclusion that the ideologies of both need to be discussed, critiqued and shredded.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Yeah don't agree with this ban at all. Restricting freedom of speech and information is a crime against democracy. The erosion of democracy is the aim of terrorists, so I guess NZ achieved one of those goals by themselves

5 ( +6 / -1 )

And btw, if nanny governments are afraid that their populaces have to be allowed only nanny approved reading, are they going to ban the koran? Nobody would argue it hasnt inspired thousands to commit acts of terror. Where are you on this, Jacinda?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@Anonymous,

well said!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The nutjob shooter in NZ is being painted as a “white nationalist”, but is he?

The MSM in their initial analysis of his “manifesto” had him down as a nihilist who was bent on sowing confusion and dissention within societies.

He stated that he was inspired by (among others equally spuriously) conservative commentater Candace Owen - who btw has never preached anything anti- muslim or “white sipremacist” and happens to be african American.

Now of course we cant read it and find out for ourselves.

But no problem, right? We can trust our governments and CNN etc to cherry pick the appropriate bits for us.

Right?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

You claim this:

He stated that he was inspired by (among others equally spuriously) conservative commentater Candace Owen

But then go on to show that you actually don't know if he said that at all:

Now of course we cant read it and find out for ourselves.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

And btw, if nanny governments are afraid that their populaces have to be allowed only nanny approved reading, are they going to ban the koran?

Isn't it telling that the usual suspects and apologists can turn something like the Christchurch terror attack into a rant against Muslims.

Sure, ban all religious books, if that's your thing.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

So, “Where are the white nationalists?” you ask? 

You can see them clearly chanting "Jews will not replace us" at Charlottesville, murdering a protester, for example. Or killing dozens of kids in Norway, or wiping out a congregation in Pittsburgh, or killing worshippers at a church in Charleston. Or murdering politician Jo Cox, in the UK.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

But no problem, right? We can trust our governments and CNN etc to cherry pick the appropriate bits for us.

There are plenty of rightwing sources out there that will give you the particular spin you are after.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

> The far right are people who favor the terrorist and his manifesto, under the guise of freedom of speech.

Man, you have to focus on your writing. You may have something to say, but it’s sometimes hard to make it out.

“... favor ... under the guise of freedom of speech”? Wouldn’t “praise”, “support”, “defend” or “promote” be better?

Have it your way,

"the far right favor the terrorist and his manifesto, praising free speech."

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I'm assuming that the majority of the population are not fringe-dwelling extremists or crazy people, just waiting for the right stimulus to morph them into their full death-dealing potential as mass murderers.

No problem for the majority, then, in reading what the Christchurch killer had to say.

But for those who are fringe-dwelling extremists or crazy people with mass murderer potential, reading the Christchurch killer's "manifesto" might be just what they're waiting for. As it was, in part, with the Christchurch killer, reading extremist rants online, as well as proving that travel doesn't always broaden the mind.

I'm torn on this. Hate speech can/should be banned, as long as you identify it objectively and don't stifle free speech while you're doing it. Since what the Christchurch killer wrote was his justification for killing 50 people going peaceably about their lives, I think we can say that this was hate speech, and that banning it from general consumption is probably the right thing to do.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I'm fine with this being banned. This guys name, words nor video should not be viewed. He needs to disappear from history.

Is this a slippery slope? Nope.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

I'm totally in favour of the ban... people like Tarrant are no more than terrorists and should be treated as such. Their ideology must be expunged, eradicated so that it won't infect weak minded individuals looking to make a name for themselves. We all know that there are disenfranchised people out there who blame the world's ills on sectors of population, and stuff like this so-called manifesto (or the ravings of a madman) could give them ideas.

We don't need this material being available to the general public - what good would it do?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

There no reason for free speech. People need to trust their govts.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@strangerland, Toasted Heretic,

How about Mein Kampf?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

They have banned websites and books (Jordan Peterson) that have nothing to do with the attack. They simply discuss ideas that are contrary to the left, and which the killer may have liked. (Though, with an 83 page manifesto, I imagine one could read anything they want into it.) I assume an Islamic attack means they will ban the Koran as well?

It's not a slippery slope, it's cliff.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Book banning is only one rung on the ladder away from book burning. Let Tarrant’s manifesto be disseminated and stand on its own merits - surely if it’s a load of tosh people will see it for what it is and laught at it.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Im reminded of the saying, "Inside every liberal is a fascist waiting to break out.". Not hard to imagine the left banning books and information. Theyre already doing it.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

How about Mein Kampf?

Whatever floats your boat.

Personally, I'm wary of those who have Roman Imperium emblems or Olde Norse artefacts as part of their belief system.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Inside every liberal is a fascist waiting to break out."

I googled this and the only thing I could find was ‘Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out’ headline from a trash rightwing magazine featuring the likes of Ann Coulter. Trash which should not be silenced but would be better employed as lining for a bird cage.

Hardly a piece of wisdom for the ages. I fully understand why you didn’t source this quote.

Please learn that there is a difference between liberals and the authoritarian left. You won’t learn this from reading toilet paper.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If I were a Muslim living in New Zealand I would want to download and read the manifesto just to better understand and gauge any threats that my family might be facing. This should really be a fundamental right.

Is there a single example of where censorship of ideas by the ruling political elite has ended well?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How about Mein Kampf?

No.

Being an adult, I actually have a nuanced opinion.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Please learn that there is a difference between liberals and the authoritarian left. 

Liberals always trying to please and make excuses for neo-liberalism, Blair, the Graun attacking Momentum, the Libdem/Tory debacle in govt. and other forms of sitting on the fence and betrayal of the working classes, aye.

Not sure who the authoritarian left is supposed to be, though. Me? People who question the sense of streaming and downloading the massacre or making the trash manifesto a modern day call to arms for the far right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Im reminded of the saying, "Inside every liberal is a fascist waiting to break out."

Seems much more applicable to the right in the days of Trump.

Not hard to imagine the left banning books and information.

Who exactly are 'the left' of which you speak? I'm left, and I haven't proposed banning any books in particular. I do propose banning this guys' manifesto though. It serves zero purpose to humanity. He's a nobody, who need not be remembered, nor need not have anything to bring him into infamy.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If I were a Muslim living in New Zealand I would want to download and read the manifesto just to better understand and gauge any threats that my family might be facing. This should really be a fundamental right.

If I were a Muslim living in NZ, I'd never want that to see the light of day again.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I am appalled at many of the posts here.

The New Zealand killer was a terrorist. Terrorists do not deserve to have their hate speech distributed.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I am appalled at many of the posts here.

Meh, I'm not. People can be very "brave" online but they wouldn't dare say these things to their Muslim friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This is not a free speech vs hate speech issue.

You're dealing here with a guy who went out and murdered 50 people and justified it with a rant/manifesto he distributed online.

Those who want to silence this murderer's voice are Authoritarian left? No. Those who think anyone should read this guy's crap are Nihilist Right.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hitler was no angel, yet his blueprint for World War (Mein Kampf) is freely available. its called history.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Those who want to silence this murderer's voice are Authoritarian left? No. Those who think anyone should read this guy's crap are Nihilist Right.

Unfortunately, the narrative now from the latter grouping is to deflect and divide. You won't see them pushing for Islamist terrorist manifestos, oddly enough.

All of these terrorists don't need the oxygen of publicity.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Hitler was no angel, yet his blueprint for World War (Mein Kampf) is freely available. its called history.

Why on earth would you want the NZ terrorist to receive the same attention and notorious acclaim as Hitler? What would it achieve? Genuine question.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And how and what do we decide to ban or not to ban-that is the question?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Those who want to silence this murderer's voice are Authoritarian left? No. Those who think anyone should read this guy's crap are Nihilist Right.

I want to know what motivates these people. What kind of ideas do we need to deal with, challenge and ridicule? What or whom inspires these people? Does he have anything new to say to add to the list of far-right crap? We might get insights from this.

I don’t think I’m the type with a macabre fascination with the writings of scumbags. I’m not nihilist right.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If I were a Muslim living in NZ, I'd never want that to see the light of day again.

Perhaps after reading it, but not before. Logically, how could you ever arrive at such strong feelings about the manifesto if neither you nor anyone you know, nor any journalist, nor any domestic media outlet is legally allowed to download and read its contents because of the ban? This is the fundamental absurdity of censoring it.

I suspect 99% of those in favor of censoring the manifesto are already familiar with its contents. But imagine if this wasn't the case. Imagine if the authorities in NZ acted so quickly to take down and ban the manifesto that nobody outside of the NZ government knew the motives for the attack. Would you still support suppression of the manifesto? Would you be satisfied with the government's official story? Do you realise how much distrust and how many conspiracy theories this would generate? Calling for censorship of a publication that you've already read is too easy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I want to know what motivates these people. What kind of ideas do we need to deal with, challenge and ridicule? What or whom inspires these people? Does he have anything new to say to add to the list of far-right crap? We might get insights from this.

Yes, fair point. But do we learn from history and insights? I hope we do but judging by recent history and terror attacks and endless bigotry, perhaps not. It's a tough one, no doubt about it.

I don’t think I’m the type with a macabre fascination with the writings of scumbags. I’m not nihilist right.

We may often disagree, Jimizo, but I'd never have you as being a spokesperson for the right. No worries there!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I’m not nihilist right.

I know that, sport, and apologies for unwittingly including you in that description.

But I also question the value of any insights we might gain on one hand, against the perpetual voice - and potential influence - we grant this scumbag on the other hand by making his rant available. As I said in my first post, I am torn on this - but in the end, I say silence him. He sacrificed his right to be heard.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes, fair point. But do we learn from history and insights? I hope we do but judging by recent history and terror attacks and endless bigotry, perhaps not. It's a tough one, no doubt about it.

I think we do learn things and thinking we can’t learn more is very negative and defeatist.

One great thing about having Mein Kampf available is we can read it and read how it has been utterly humiliated by historians who highlight Hitler’s poor knowledge of history, humiliated by scientists who highlight his poor knowledge of science, authors who highlight his semi-literacy and political scientists who point out his poor grasp of political science.

A very good thing. A hiding and humiliation in broad daylight. Buy a bag of rotten tomatoes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One great thing about having Mein Kampf available is we can read it and read how it has been utterly humiliated by historians who highlight Hitler’s poor knowledge of history, humiliated by scientists who highlight his poor knowledge of science, authors who highlight his semi-literacy and political scientists who point out his poor grasp of political science.

Yes, I agree. My issue is with elevating this shooter to those kind of heights, though. Surely there's enough far right martyrs out there to be dealing with?

I think we do learn things and thinking we can’t learn more is very negative and defeatist.

And yet, sadly, we still have people like Richard Spencer yelling "hail Trump". What do you think such a person learned from reading Mein Kampf?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You can argue some Islamists are not as extreme as some white nationalists. Many, even the majority, of Islamists ( I’m working with the definition of someone who believes in public and political life should be guided by Islamic principles ) believe in non-violent means to install their system of government and don’t believe in separation by religion.

I’m working with definitions of Islamist and Muslim suggested by Imam Tawhidi. The former are people dedicated to the spread of Islam at the expense of all non-Muslims by infiltration and takeover of political systems and physical coercion including war and terrorism. A Muslim, on the other hand he says, is concerned only with living his life according to the teachings in the Quran but would allow a non-Muslim to follow his own path even if that meant damnation.

In this light I would say that Islamists are extremists by definition. Some white nationalists are, too. However, in terms in numbers Islamists far outnumber white nationalists around the world and so pose the greater threat.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@anonymous

Thanks for a considered post.

We can argue about these definitions. Some argue that for the sake of clarity, the term ‘Islamist’ should be defined as those pursuing non-violent means of installing their ideas over society, while those who go further and endorse or pursue violent means should be defined as ‘jihadist’. I remember the former Islamist turned reformer Maajid Nawaz making this distinction by explaining why the unapologetically Islamist group he belonged to remains legal - it does not espouse violence. However, I’d agree with you that both ‘groups’ are extremists.

I’d agree that in terms of numbers, Islamists and Jihadis pose a greater problem worldwide, but my point that both Islamists and white supremacists need to be opposed still stands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While I would normally oppose any such forms of censorship, I think the bigger picture here is removing any oxygen from this guy, his hate and his desire to be notorious.

That will make it less attractive for copycats and others considering a similar attack. The fact that you never hear his name or see his manifesto means that they won't get the notoriety they so desperately seek if they attempt the same thing.

Free speech is to be defended vigorously. Hate speech not so much. This isn't a slippery slope; this is making sensible distinctions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps after reading it, but not before.

You obviously missed the point altogether. You supposed what you think if you were a Muslim in NZ, and I supposed the opposite if I were a Muslim in NZ - to expose the point that neither of us are Muslims in NZ, so our suppositions of what we would think if were were something we're not, in a place we aren't, is entirely irrelevant.

Logically, how could you ever arrive at such strong feelings about the manifesto if neither you nor anyone you know, nor any journalist, nor any domestic media outlet is legally allowed to download and read its contents because of the ban?

Because the guy who wrote it murdered 50 people in cold blood, and I don't feel he deserves any notoriety whatsoever. If he wanted his manifesto to be known, he should have published it without killing anyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In Australia we have laws against racial and religious vilification, but we have a prime minister, Slogan ScoMo and his Minister for White Supremacy, Deadhead Dutton that do nothing but spew hate speech by calling asylum seekers murderers, rapists and paedophiles in order to deny children seeking asylum needed medical attention. Why do the laws not apply to these racist politicians? Again, I ask: to what extent has the constant racist ranting and spewing of our prime minister and his Minister for White Supremacy  contributed to the radicalisation of the person responsible for the terrorism in NZ? This terrorist lived most of his live in Australia exposed this spew. Now the PM and his cohort want to blame social media and deflect any blame.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You won't see them pushing for Islamist terrorist manifestos, oddly enough.

Nobody has made it a crime to read one, is why. Let me know when it happens. I will protest it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I watched the footage of the attack, and it wasn't free speech that killed those poor people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He probably uploaded it to the deep web or some torrent site..

for him to do a livestream on facebook, psychologically means he is wanting attention to get millenials to copy him.. nz should have the death penalty

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rlperez@hotmail.com.au

I have aussie friends who told me about the port arthur massacre in tasmania and the cronulla riots, redfern riots etc why do aussies have so much negativity to asians, aboriginals and other non anglo races?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@kenjiFujimori so one small group stands for the whole population does it?Ever been to Australia?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Northernlife

of course not all people as I have aussie friends, just saying why do many bad things racially motivated occur often in Australia is all im asking, good and bad in all cultures

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we to be clear that, whatever is inciting unjustified hate, urging the citizen to taking arms when there are abundance of peaceful means of negotiation or resolution, must be banned.

Meaning whatever written (that call for arms attack) by the Terrorist(s) regardless of race, religion or ideology must be scrutinized & blocked from the public

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Kenji you should go check the place out its amazing mix of nationalities...Japan has its fair share of racially motivated hate going on too..

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Northernlife

I would like to one day, you seem like a cool guy.

Yes we do have our share of that too sadly, mostly from 街宣車 yakuza linked black vans that you see with loudspeakers are all yakuza linked though not neo nazi or whatever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@kenji i travel to Australia regularly doesn't mean I am Australian.Yeah i know what the 街宣車 are see them all the time I think every Country has their share of fruit loops running around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites