Reports coming out state the gunman wore a helmet cam and recorded this disgusting act of mass murder, even returning to the scene and assasinating survivors. The toll may be over 30.
Comes as no surprise to me that the NZ PM has mooted that if found guilty the shooter should serve part of his sentence in Australia.
We will have to bear some of the cost of his incarceration it would appear.
We are pretty close as nations but are separate. Seems to me that if you offend another State's law you should face that State's punishment. Australia may feel some responsibility for this alleged murderer but it would be a pity to weaken the principle because of the extraordinary nature of the crime.
The guilty culprit should feel the full weight of the law dissapearing under it for as long as it is possible to maintain it.
I commend our PM for coming out very quickly and saying on the day of the terror attack:
"I condemn the violent, extremist, right-wing terrorist attack that has stolen the lives of so many innocent New Zealanders as they went about their peaceful practice of worship at their mosques in Christchurch today."
If he had not done so there would have been condemnation as he was very forthright when the Melbourne terror attack occurred when he said something along the lines that more should be coming from the Muslim community in condemning these terrorist attacks carried out by extremists.
I would certainly hope if there are any more terror attacks in Australia that condemnation is forthcoming from ALL races and faiths.
A heated debate with senator @PaulineHansonOz and @HumanHeadline over Fraser Anning and anti-muslim rhetoric.
Herald Sun - link
"Turns out the ABC fact checkers didn't check enough.
Anning got his 56 per cent figure from an estimate made in 2015 by Henry Ergas, who says the ABC misses some crucial detail:
The number of people not working, to which my column referred, is the sum of those who are out of work and seeking a job — that is, the unemployed — and those who are neither working nor seeking work, that is, who are not in the labour force.
My 56 per cent estimate covered both.
Unfortunately , in citing that estimate, Anning — who has no reason to be aware of the technicalities — omitted the reference to the numbers unemployed, instead merely referring to those “not in the labour force”. However, it is clear from the context, and from his reliance on my column, that he meant the overall share not working; but his technical error was more than enough for the ABC.
“Gotcha!” its taxpayer-funded sleuths must have shouted. And off they went, going to enormous lengths to show that according to the 2016 census, the proportion of working-age Muslims who are not in the labour force is below 50 per cent.
Indeed it is, with the census putting that proportion at 42.8 per cent. Stressing that 42.8 per cent is “significantly less” than the 56 per cent “cited by Senator Anning”, the ABC breathlessly handed down its verdict: “Senator Anning is wrong.”
Now, call me old-fashioned, but I prefer my comparisons like for like. And the ABC’s obviously is not.
After all, my column explicitly referred to the proportion who are “either unemployed or not in the labour force”. And the senator was referring to my estimate, even if he took shortcuts in describing it.
But never one to give a sucker an even break (except, of course, when the sucker is one of its own), the ABC — in a report that covers about four pages of text — didn’t find space to disclose the proportion that can properly be compared with mine.
No wonder: at 51.3 per cent, that number — that is, the share of working-age Muslims who are not working — is both very close to my rough estimate in 2015 and fully in line with the claim the senator sought to make."
I'll stick with the ABC's findings.
He should complete his full sentence in New Zealand, while he is there Australia should be considering what chargescan be bought forth for him to face when he gets out and is sent back. I am sure there is something he can be charged with under Anti Terrorism laws.
With any luck, he will never see another day of freedom.
Paul Barry, on Media Watch on Monday night, made an interesting observation about the media coverage of this terrible act of terrorism. It was something I hadn't really noticed but now that I think about it, he just might have a point.
He mentioned that in similar cases, like the Lindt murders, the coverage was mostly seen from the point of view of the victims, making it mostly a story about them. In this case, the coverage has been pretty much all about the perpetrator, making it all about him, rather than the victims, which is just how he would have wanted it to be.
I understand how it happened, this low-life was live-streaming his attack. In the past, that kind of footage hasn't been available and the news media must have found themselves with a dilemma on their hands, do we use it or don't we? To be fair they pretty much all decided not to use it, but they all mentioned that they had it and showed the first little bit, over and over, so it sort of became the main part of the story anyway.
The New Zealand Prime Minister's decision to not use his name is a good one, and hopefully the beginning of turning the narrative around.
It could be expected that Barry would be wanting to cover the rear ends of ABC reporters and comperes now that Jacinda Ardern has had the courage and forthrightness to state publicly the very sad truth of such incidents, which is that the offenders' motivation, their goal, is to be seen to pay society back for their own inadequacies and to win notoriety forevermore. The feckless media outlets do that for them in spades. They are shameless.
Arguably, political correctness can slant of the reporting because in politically correct Australia and certainly where the ABC and media are concerned, all offenders are not equal.
But how can Barry keep a straight face where celebrity politics is being linked with the awful Christchurch murders and accusations are being levelled at all of the Progressives' (the faux Left) targets, from Chelsea Clinton to Trump (always at fault!), an Oz Senator, through to competitors in the media? If hypocrisy was an Olympic marathon event, in this case Paul Barry would have won the gold by 40km and more.
It is nothing short of amazing how the Christchurch murders are being lept upon by scummy political opportunists in Australia in very much the same way as the Mandalay Bay murders were. The publicly funded national broadcaster is in fact being seen to be leading the charge!
Yes pity the ABC can't be as balanced and unbiasesd as yourself. LOL
As long as the government has faithfull apoligists as yourself nothing will change. Just another reason why they must go.
We have had decades of a government that has called legal asylum seekers illegal immigrants, they have derided good people as possible rapists, murderers and thieves, and now we have a white supremest attacking people of the same type. Pull your head out of wherever it is and connect the dots.
You can have your political agenda but don't put it above decency and commom sense.
Your reply exemplifies the shabby celebrity politics that is being played in Australia to score political points out of the losses and suffering in NZ.
Funny how some can make bogus political claims to prop up a political party and still hav ethe gall to point the finger at others.
Has or has not the Liberal Party not been making the statements that I claim they have for decades?
You can't call shabby political politics just because you don't like the truth.
What about saying that if you give people medical treatment you will be opening the flood gates to thousands of refugees who could be rapists and murderers, do you count that as shabby celebrity politics, or spending tens of thousands of dollars flying politicians and people in black uniforms to Christmas Island for a political sound byte that could have been done just as well in Canberra. Would you call that shabby celebrity politics?
By all means, have your say, but don't play the hypocrite.
I agree with Jacinda Adhern. I don't regard that as being an apologist for anything. It is something I have always believed. It was a view I put prior to Jacinda Adhern's statement.
It is simply a plea for commonsense and professional ethics to prevail so as not to repeat the circle of disaffected copycats competing for the personal notoriety for life that is presently guaranteed by the media and political opportunists, who undeniably are pursuing their own secondary agendas, as usual :(
for those wondering about terrorism attacks in Australia here is a list.
CENSURE MOTION PASSES
As expected, Senator Fraser Anning's comments about the Christchurch massacre have been censured. Cory Bernardi voted against the motion and One Nation abstained.
This really just puts it on the record that the Australian Parliament has condemned his comments. He won't be banned, or suspended.
There was no final vote, it carried on voices. Fraser Anning was not in the chamber when the censure motion passed.
Good! That calls for two yolks, haha
so much hullabaloo over the nz shooting, which while i dont condone it, is no worse than attrocities commited by muslims virtually every day all over the world, yet this single incident is in the news every day for weeks, and will probalby continue to do so for months, although the vast majority of islamic attrocities arent even reported in the news worldwide, and the few that do rarely get a contuinuing mention.
to my knowledge, the nz shooting is the nearest thing to an act of terrorism in recent years, that wasnt done by muslims. that should tell people something.
am i the only one that has realised that in recent years, we would have had world peace for the first time in history, if there were no muslims? EVERY armed conflict as far as i can tell has involved muslims, most of which are muslims v muslims.
is islam really an asset to the world? can anybody mention how muslims make the world a better place to live in any way at all? (except for people like arms dealers, security companies, mercenary organisations, war related induestries etc?)