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."