world

Report shows how New Zealand mosque shooter eluded detection

11 Comments
By NICK PERRY

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

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


11 Comments
Login to comment

If I'm not mistaken, New Zealand's PM asked to not name this murderer so he won't get the fame and recognition he sought for:

" I implore you: speak the names of those who were lost, rather than the name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand will give him nothing, not even his name."

PM Jacina Ardern.

I kinda agreed to her position, and I didn't know his name, just what he did, how families were affected and what they did to recover from their tragic loss. Until today.

Now I know what his name is and you guys have succesfully humanized what could only be described as a monster, someone who doesn't deserve to be named nor recognized.

Then again, I could be overdramatizing things, but still it would have been cool to follow through with the desires of avoiding any notoriety to the person.

Reference: https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealand-pm-vows-mosque-attacker-will-remain-nameless/a-47970580

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Now I know what his name is and you guys have succesfully humanized what could only be described as a monster, someone who doesn't deserve to be named nor recognized.

I think the article only "humanizes" this killer to the extent that we recognize some of the worst aspects of a human being in his character. It certainly doesn't offer any excuses for what he did, just explanations. I think that's important for people to know, especially if there's a possibility that the knowledge of how this man was radicalized might set off alarm bells in the future if another potential mass killer sets off down the same path.

I don't think that by suggesting people not use the killer's name that Jacinda Ardern meant that we should remain ignorant of his motivations and background. I think that her (and you, and me) denying the use of his name to this killer is, a denial of his humanity that he deserves. Along with life in jail, of course.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Gun license reference...”someone he knew mostly from online gaming”.... lol

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Made things difficult for law abiding gun owners in New Zealand.

"New Zealand's intelligence agencies were focused on the threat posed by Islamic extremism rather than white supremacists."

Another example of institutionalized white privilege. A brown man buying guns would have raised alarm bells for sure.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@LDTM found in the article itself

"The report also found that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, the domestic spying agency, had chosen to concentrate scarce counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism inspired by groups like Islamic State at the expense of other threats."

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@EvilBubbha: The last line, however, states that it couldn’t be found “except by chance”, presumably therefore, a statistical outlier. If the “intelligence agency” (quotation marks intentional) focused their scarce resources on a particular threat, it suggests that is where the greatest risk lies.

That apart, can you show that ‘white privilege’ exists? Can you show that Maoris buying guns leads to extra scrutiny?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"can you show that ‘white privilege' exists"

I can't show that white privilege exists to someone who is blind towards it because he is white and has never faced the extra scrutiny that non-white folks have to face in many places. Maoris buying guns is a strawman's argument.

My dad who is a frequent flyer to Australia, US, Switzerland and Germany faced that extra scrutiny all the time at airports because he is brown and keeps a beard (we are not Muslim). He had to take out his UN travel document to ease things and then had to hear the assurances of airport staff that 'random' checks were part of security measures even though he knew they were anything but random. Same thing happened to both of us at Christchurch airport when we traveled to NZ for a holiday.

So no, I can't prove that white privilege exists to you but most of us non-whites who have faced 'random' checks know that it does.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The term "white privilege" does no one any favors. It places blame on white people, and unreasonably expects shame from them.

It should be referred to as "the privilege of majority", as it's nothing specific to white people. Those foreigners who live in Japan have seen the existence of "Japanese privilege". And yes, that term is just as silly as it sounds. The privilege white people get in countries where this term is used is due to being the majority, not due to being born Caucasian.

The majority shouldn't be expected to feel shame for simply being born as they were. Remember, that's one of the major problems with racism in the first place - looking down on people for what they are, rather than what they've done. Anyone expecting white people to feel shame for white privilege is just as racist as that which they decry.

Recently I read about how "white privilege" punishes minorities, this is an incorrect conclusion. Minorities obviously don't receive the benefits of the privilege of majority. But, neither does the majority receive the privilege of minority; support from organizations like the NAACP, or scholarships that are specifically for minorities. These benefits that only go to minorities don't punish the majority, neither do benefits to the majority punish the minorities. They are advantages each group gets, and each group gets its specific advantages.

The secret to removing both the existence of the privilege of majority, as well as the necessity of the privilege of minority, is to bring awareness to said privilege without using language that punishes members of a group for being a member of that group. This is the way to bring about an equality of opportunity, which is a society of actual equality.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

New Zealand's intelligence agencies were focused on the threat posed by Islamic extremism rather than white supremacists.

A blind spot it shares with the United States. I guess it easier to believe a terrorist isn’t a terrorist when he looks like you. Countries need to start treating white supremacists the same way their treat Islamic terrorists: a meet-and-greet with the business end of a Predator drone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with comments re' systemic failings. I disagree there was no clear signs, because this just confirms the blinkered myopic vision of various agencies. IF an Islamic or Maori actor had carried out similar acts, alarm bells would have rung everywhere.

EBuddha, I agree white privilege is in play here. But, if you know the kiwis, you would appreciate that they're more English than England, and that deep down, privilege is a cultural structure that's ingrained in NZ society, and it's not just color.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Failures all around. Hopefully this tragedy will provide some lessons.

I disagree there was no clear signs, because this just confirms the blinkered myopic vision of various agencies

That depends on your definition of the word (used in the article) 'imminent'. Given the example of the manifesto - posted eight minutes before the attack, I think they are using it in the more immediate sense.

2 ( +2 / -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